Basic Assumptions in the Virginia Ratification Debates: Patrick Henry vs. James Madison on the Nature of Man and Reason.

Autor/in	Einhorn, Lois
Titel	Basic Assumptions in the Virginia Ratification Debates: Patrick Henry vs. James Madison on the Nature of Man and Reason.
Quelle	(1978), (21 Seiten)Verfügbarkeit
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Civil Liberties; Debate; Government Role; Language Styles; Persuasive Discourse; Rhetorical Criticism; Speech Communication; United States History + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Debating; Streitgespräch; Sprachstil; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation
Abstract	The identifiably different rhetorical behaviors of Patrick Henry and James Madison, as expressed in their Virginia debates, reflect each man's philosophical view of human nature and the role of reason in human behavior. Patrick Henry, expressing the pessimism of Calvinistic tradition, believed that people are intrinsically evil with a dominant drive toward self-interest. Government, according to Henry, is likewise evil because it is composed of human elements; consequently, the concept of checks and balances is absurd. Liberty and power originate with the people as a natural and individual right. Patrick Henry's rhetoric is absolute and filled with either/or formulations that allow for little deliberation. On the other hand, Madison expressed a complex view of human nature that combined Calvinistic pessimism with Enlightenment optimism. Emphasizing the positive aspects of human nature, he stressed the amount of trust that is implied in civilized society. Representatives are the mouthpieces of the people, and governmental checks prevent the abuse of power. Government operates as a "neutral sovereign" where factional interests are subservient to the national interests. Madison's rhetoric is rational and reflects balance and moderation in the areas dealing with human liberty and choices. (MAI)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC