1. What is the author arguing?
I think the author, Henry L Mencken, is obviously arguing against Bryan. He had a lot of negative things to say about him. The entire writing by Mencken was him hating on Bryan and seemed as if everything Bryan did was wrong. It also seemed like Mencken was making fun of Bryan in a harsh way. He stated "He knew all the while that they were laughing at him-if not at his baroque theology, then at least at his alpaca pantaloons." He did not see one sincere thing in Bryan besides his liking for country lawyers, country pastors, and all country people.
2. How does the author appeal to logos(logic), pathos(emotional quality), and ethos(the writers perceived character) with their arguement?
I think the author appeals to an audience many ways. For one, it seems as if he laughing at Byran and said rude things but it's kind of hard not to funny especially when he said "surrounded by gaping primates". The author is definitley rude to Bryan but he is writing it in a joking manner. To me it seems as if Mencken is mocking Bryan's belief especially the baroque theory throughout the entire writing. He mentions "When he died he was the peer of Abraham." Mencken talked about Bryans beliefs as if it were some kind of joke. He even added "... and that Jonah swallowed the whale." He says this because he is simply mocking Bryans beliefs. Even before reading the actual writing, you get a sense that Mencken never liked Bryan just from the first little paragraph. Throughout the writing, Mencken adds his own little opinions, such as "Bryan lived too long, and descended too deeply into the mud to be taken seriously hereafter by fully literate men, even of the kind who write school-books."
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
I think the historical signifiance of the document is to show that religion and politics just dont go together. Mencken mentions that Bryan came very near being the President of the US. But I think the reason he didn't was because of how strongly he felt about his beliefs and wasnt afraid to speak about them.
4. Do you find the authors arguement convicing? Why or why not?
In my opinion I dont find the arguement convicing. For one I thought Mencken was way too harsh in the way he was writing about Bryan. He didnt have to make fun of him just because he didnt fully agree with him. One thing that I agreed with Mencken was that when you mix religion and beliefs with politics, nothing good comes out of it.
