Jacob ShoemakerImahni Carrington’s Updates
Rhetoric of Olive Branch Petition
In the document of the Olive Branch Petition, the arthor used rhetoric by being respectful in telling their greivances to the king. During this phase of the rebellion, they were still trying to be loyal to the Britsh Crown. They explained how they didn't like certain things by talking about feeling distressed and overwhelmed. Futhermore, they talked about the things that they did in order to help the thrown, to make it seem that they had some sort of right to have these feelings. I think that because of the time period the language, it was very difficult to understand, but these were the things they were trying to communicate.
I agree that the Author's form of rhetoric was very smart, and that the respectful tone did exemplify that the author strongly desired a reconciliation. They also, made sure to imput their opinions, by stating that in order for there to be reconciliation some things most definitely needed to be changed, not just saying that the colonies would lie on their backs. The respectful rhetoric, allowed for their to be the other side of the spectrum, to basically say, see we have tried everything. And the fact Britain still didn't oblige, is now on them.
The author continuously compliments the King and states that the colonists will be loyal to the monarch by being faithful subjects on this continent ready and willing at all times. Throughout the document, the Continental Congress is showing desperation for the acceptance of the King. Yes, the author was respectful when stating the grievances to the King, but wouldn't stating the grievances disrespect the King more than convince him to consider reconciliation?
This does not really talk about the olive branch petition. You should talk more about how the colonists wanted peace. Talk more about how they wanted to be treated fairly.