Response to Patrick Henry Post

In this passage, the thing that I really noticed was the use of repetition. Through out the whole passage, Henry uses repetition a lot like when he says sir, which he says about 5 or 6 times in the passage. I think that he does that, to show respect to who he is reading the speech to. Use these posts to practice your "concise is nice" mantra. Ex: substitute "audience" for the stuff in red. He also uses phrases like we will, or we have, which really makes you feel united as one thing, which is what is needed if he is playing to go to war. Yes, good analysis of pronouns.
In the beginning section, I also noticed the use of quite a few rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions make person think about the question and realize, Oh ya, that does make sense, or that does not make sense. And with the rhetorical questions, he uses parallel structure with the Will it, and Shall we, which gives a nice sound when you are reading it. This gets pretty vague. Instead of discussing what rhetorical questions do generally, you want to discuss what these rhetorical questions do. Essentially, he's using them as antithesis, to say to his audience that the charges that they are weak are false; in fact, by waiting to respond to Britain, they will only become weaker. He also uses parallel structure in the later part with the vigilant, the active the brave, which also makes you feel passionate and it does give it the nice sound when you are reading it. Good job noting the parallel structure. I just want to see you go beyond "gives it a nice sound" because writers want all things to sound good. In this case, the parallel structure beats like a drum, rousing the listener's emotions and inciting action! Henry also uses Pathos a lot in most of this passage, in the rhetorical questions, it causes me to feel scared and worried and then in the very last part, it makes you feel passionate for the war, especially with all of the exclamation marks, it gives it real vigor and passion. The alliteration also suggests the impossibility of surrender for strong men: "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery." Again, he returns to the analogy of enslavement.
The very first sentence is antithesis, he is saying how people think that they are too weak to fight the British, and then he shoots them down with all of his rhetorical questions. It's like you're redoing this, with the specfics here. Get specific the first time! He also uses Logos a bit when he talks about the three million people, which just sounds like so many people, which makes the people feel better about having a chance to win the war. Exactly; also antithesis--how can we be weak if we're three million strong? He also uses analogy in the last bit, with the part about chains are forged and the clanging can be heard, kind of an analogy to the slaves. Notice this analogy runs through the whole piece. His extended metaphor drives home the danger of inaction. And there is an allusion well, it's not really an allusion. Allusions are less direct to God, when he mentions God of nature gave us powers. It's important here to see the connection to the Age of Reason God, the "just God" who has endowed men with natural, inalienable rights to liberty. He also uses a bit of benefits, mentioning that we aren't going to fight this war alone, which makes people feel a lot better knowing that they have help. Using all of this things together makes this speech very well written and a good way to persuade people to agree with the starting of to start? C.I.N. (concise is nice)a war against England.
This got better as you went. I'd caution you against to things in your future posts: 1) wasting space on generalities; and 2) wasting words with wordiness. I'm going to keep using CIN for you, and you'll know that it means get concise, sister! It's sort of like LOL or OMG.