Patrick Henry puts both …show more content…
Henry, who has an extremely educated audience in the context of the speech, uses more ethos and complements the men on their intelligence. First, he alludes to literature that the men would be familiar with. His mention of "siren[s]...that transform[] [them] into beasts" alludes to The Odyssey. This not only makes him seem intelligent but also complements his audience. He assumes they understand the reference. He could have been much simpler when speaking to the men, but instead meets them on their "level". Henry does not look down upon them, or treat them like they are unintelligent. This, in a way, is flattery. More obvious examples of trying to flatter the audience are when he addresses them as "worthy gentleman" and "wise men". Since he is making a persuasive argument, he is trying to get the men on his side. On the other hand, Bush's flattery is more uplifting. The nation has just been attacked, and the people are scared. He, as the President, needs to calm them down. Therefore, he is trying to calm them down, while at the same time applaud them for how they have responded thus far. He builds on this by making America seem like a mighty fortress, with the people's "steel of American resolve" as "the foundation of America". He gives the audience a sense of pride in what they have achieved, lifting them from the "terrible sadness" and "unyielding anger" he described in the first paragraph. His compliments give the people strength and courage, building their egos with each new image he describes. Each author uses this flattery to control the audience. The audience likes what they hear, so they will continue to listen and take the side of the