Rules are Meant for Breaking; A Comparison between Anthony Weston and Garry Wills
Garry Wills’ Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America explores the infamous words that Abraham Lincoln spoke, or rather, did not speak in his Gettysburg Address. The chapter, “Revolution in Thought”, examines how Lincoln helped promote harmony and countered the common idea that the states were united only through the contract agreements signed in the Constitution. Anthony Weston, the author of A Rulebook for Arguments gives readers pointers on how to write effectively when presenting an argument. After reading the text, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, Wills clearly follows and violates multiple rules that Weston iterates in his …show more content…
In Will’s argument, a major point against his claim is that Lincoln treated the South as if they were foreign terrorists. Wills says that Lincoln did not declare war on them, instead he viewed the citizens in the south as rebels and sent legal militia to quell insurgent behavior. Upon inspection, Wills bolsters Lincoln’s argument by providing, “constitutional parallels” or representative examples of Lincoln’s behavior surrounding his military involvement (Wills 134). According to Weston’s Rulebook for Argument, “single examples offer no support for a generalization”. Will’s makes sure that he compares Lincoln’s response to the insurrection of the South to not just one example but to two different examples in which presidents responded to rebellions. Wills compares Lincoln’s behavior to Washington 's response to the Whisky Rebellion and Lyndon Johnson’s response to the urban riots of the late 1960s. He explains that “Washington had sent federalized militia to Pennsylvania--just as Johnson sent federal troops to Detroit--without a declaration of war”(Wills 134). Wills uses the explanation from both occurrences of an insurgency to explain how Lincoln treated the South. The use of multiple examples makes Lincoln 's claim about insuring domestic tranquility more compelling. One occurrence of response to insurgency does not prove that Lincoln responded appropriately to the South in their rebellion. This is where Weston’s “more than one example” rule falls into play. When Wills provides parallels of Lincoln 's behavior in situations, Lincoln’s behavior is plausible and can be seen as merely responding to an insurgency which is seen in the Whiskey Rebellion and the rebellion in
Garry Wills’ Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America explores the infamous words that Abraham Lincoln spoke, or rather, did not speak in his Gettysburg Address. The chapter, “Revolution in Thought”, examines how Lincoln helped promote harmony and countered the common idea that the states were united only through the contract agreements signed in the Constitution. Anthony Weston, the author of A Rulebook for Arguments gives readers pointers on how to write effectively when presenting an argument. After reading the text, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America, Wills clearly follows and violates multiple rules that Weston iterates in his …show more content…
In Will’s argument, a major point against his claim is that Lincoln treated the South as if they were foreign terrorists. Wills says that Lincoln did not declare war on them, instead he viewed the citizens in the south as rebels and sent legal militia to quell insurgent behavior. Upon inspection, Wills bolsters Lincoln’s argument by providing, “constitutional parallels” or representative examples of Lincoln’s behavior surrounding his military involvement (Wills 134). According to Weston’s Rulebook for Argument, “single examples offer no support for a generalization”. Will’s makes sure that he compares Lincoln’s response to the insurrection of the South to not just one example but to two different examples in which presidents responded to rebellions. Wills compares Lincoln’s behavior to Washington 's response to the Whisky Rebellion and Lyndon Johnson’s response to the urban riots of the late 1960s. He explains that “Washington had sent federalized militia to Pennsylvania--just as Johnson sent federal troops to Detroit--without a declaration of war”(Wills 134). Wills uses the explanation from both occurrences of an insurgency to explain how Lincoln treated the South. The use of multiple examples makes Lincoln 's claim about insuring domestic tranquility more compelling. One occurrence of response to insurgency does not prove that Lincoln responded appropriately to the South in their rebellion. This is where Weston’s “more than one example” rule falls into play. When Wills provides parallels of Lincoln 's behavior in situations, Lincoln’s behavior is plausible and can be seen as merely responding to an insurgency which is seen in the Whiskey Rebellion and the rebellion in