Hector St. Harold Ickes, Secretary Of The Interior Under President Roosevelt

Two men, two different visions. But one that inspired the nation. Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior under President Roosevelt, delivered his speech six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was a time when the Nazis were taking over the world. J. Hector St. John de Crèvecur wrote this letter six years after America gained its independence. Ickes’ speech was more persuasive than Crèvecur’s letter due to his use of rhetorical devices and the demand for the speech due to the circumstances. First of all, in Ickes’ document his use of figurative language is better used than that of Crèvecur’s. While talking about how American people are becoming weaker, he says, “... the wave of the future has passed over us and left us a wet, dead

Ickes use is more persuasive because American people have a big ego, and by saying this he is degrading them to get the reaction out of them that he wants. He needs the people of his country to stand up and prove they haven't gotten worse. This use of figurative language does just that, and that is why it is more persuasive. Another example is Ickes’ use of purpose, which is better shown throughout his document. Towards the middle of his speech, when saying Americans are falling into the trap and are starting to believe that it is fine for people to fall under the Nazi rule, he states, “I say that it is time for the great American people to raise their voices and cry out in mighty triumph what it is to be an American. And why it is that only Americans, with the aid of our brave allies—yes, let’s call them “allies”—the British, “can and will build the only future worth having” (Ickes 1). By making the purpose clear, it helps the reader engage in the text and prevents them from having to guess what they are reading about. While reading Crèvecur’s letter, the purpose was hidden. Readers have to piece together words and make assumptions to guess what they are reading

This is why Ickes’ is more persuasive. Some may argue that Crèvecoeur's use of allusion is better than Icke's use. Near the end of his letter, Crèvecur gains credibility when saying, "Here religion demands but little of him; a small voluntary salary to the minister and gratitude to God... (Crèvecoeur 2). Crèvecur's allusion to religion adds moral authority to his argument, making it more relatable and persuasive to his audience, but this is outweighed by Ickes’ diction. In the sixth paragraph of his document, he explains what an American is. Reassuring what Americans will sacrifice, how hard they will fight, and what an American heart is made up of. Ickes knew what he needed to prepare Americans for, and he did it in the most persuasive way—what this country is known for—patriotism. Ickes' appeal to patriotism and national security was more motivating to the American people than Crèvecur's allusion to religion. This is why opposers are wrong; Crèvecoeurs letter is not persuasive. When breaking down figurative language, purpose, and diction, it is obvious that Ickes’ speech is more