Benjamin Banneker Letter Rhetorical Analysis

Benjamin Banneker, a man of many talents and son of former slaves, took it upon himself to address the tyranny that is slavery, in his letter to former secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson. He expresses his negative viewpoint through ethos, logos and pathos which help him appeal to his audience; as do his constant use of biblical references, repetition and emotional diction.
Banneker continually addresses Jefferson as “Sir” in attempts to maintain a polite disposition throughout his letter. He opens his letter with “Sir” and then repeats it six other times in order to create an attitude of respect towards Jefferson. This comes to show that despite his opposition towards Jefferson’s pro-slavery stance, Benjamin Banneker carries out his appeal
He firstly recalls back to when the British crown was in power, to remind Jefferson of his desperate longing of freedom and free will. He urges him to look back to the times where “every human aid appeared unavailable” juxtaposed to his current state of tranquility. This contradistinction reminds Jefferson of their battle of freedom to gain independence from Great Britain and how they for so long desired the liberty that they now possess. Secondly, he uses frequent religious appeals to disprove Jefferson’s standpoint; he addresses his hypocrisy by stating that while Jefferson believes that the “benevolence of the Father of mankind and of his equal and impartial distribution of those rights and privileges” he defies his beliefs by allowing slavery to continue. His use of biblical appeals bind both Jefferson and Banneker under one God, proving they are alike in all ways other than race. Lastly, Banneker uses Thomas Jefferson’s position as framer of The Declaration of Independence to his advantage by using his own words against him; that his utopian views of freedom “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” would be considered hypocritical if it did not apply to all races, as he distinctly