Authors often use rhetorical proofs to enhance their arguments in order to appeal to their 
audience in various ways. Ethos, pathos, and logos aid the author by strengthening his or her
argument based on the particular rhetorical situation. Joel Salatin utilizes these proofs in his
essay 'Declare Your Independence' to relay his point that food is an aspect of our lives that we
can control, but we are not doing so to the best of our ability. Salatin's use of deductive and
rhetorical reasoning, his situated ethos, given that he is well informed about he subject, and his
play on the emotions of the audience create a platform for a strong argument that he carries out
throughout the essay. These proofs assist Salatin in conveying his argument to effectively
validate his point to the audience.

Salatin's main argument is that America needs to move away from a 'controlled' way of
eating, that is, factory-produced food, to a more natural and free way of eating. He argues that
we have given up our control over something that we can easily regain control of. He talks about
what has happened to our food with all of the additives, preservatives, and 'unpronounceable
ingredients listed on the colorful packages' (Salatin 188) and then moves on to talk about how
we can reclaim our freedom of eating by taking control of what we eat. In Salatin's argument he
relates our loss of control to the power of the government and our will to be free, being that we
are in a country founded upon the principle of freedom. Throughout the argument, Salatin
employs logos, ethos and pathos to his advantage, creating a solid argument for reclaiming our
food freedom.

Salatin's appeal to logos creates a logical sense in his argument and allows the reader to
follow the argument and believe what he is saying. He uses deductive reasoning to begin with a
general frame of mind about food and then works toward his real argument about our lack of
control over food. He begins the essay with what has happened to food as we have added
preservatives and coloring, among many other things, to essentially make it less natural. He uses
this opportunity to question food safety and the quality of industrialized food. After discussing
food in general, Salatin hits his real point when he mentions who decides what food is safe. Here
we see Salatin's real issue: the decisions are being made for us. He states that the decisions are
being made by 'the same type of people who decided in the Dred Scott ruling that slaves were
not human beings' (Salatin 189). Here he implies that those making decisions for us now once
made ridiculous decisions for our country, and thus we should be cautious when following their
orders about our food. He also says that, 'once we realize that safety is a matter of personal
choice, individual freedom suddenly-- and appropriately-- takes center stage' (Salatin 189). Here
is where Salatin heavily emphasizes the point he is trying to make. Using this deductive
reasoning allows Salatin to flow easily into his argument so that audience is more likely to accept
his argument because they have been eased into it. Salatin, in a way, sets up all the facts for his
argument before moving into his actual argument. This makes it more believable when the
audience reaches his point and begins to consider it. Salatin is also using rhetorical reasoning in
his essay because he is drawing on the collective belief of people in America that the controlling
factor, the government, is making good decisions for them. In other words, there is not a
particularly large body of people saying that the food they are consuming is bad. There are
people who think that there is a problem with our food, but he is drawing on the communal
assumption that there is nothing wrong with neither the food nor the control that the government
has over the food. He is also using false reasoning because it seems to be widely accepted that
the government is having a healthy control over the type of food that people are consuming; if
this was not widely accepted then there would be a more urgent attempt to change the freedom of
food (much like Salatin is urging us to do in the essay). He asks the audience, 'What good are
[the freedom to own guns, speak and assemble] if I can't choose to eat what my body wants' '
(Salatin 189). Salatin uses his argument to point out the reality of the situation and the fact that
the food that the government is controlling is not necessarily the safest food given all the
additives in it. The combination of both rhetorical and false reasoning strengthens the essay's
argument because Salatin draws on more than just one premise to get his argument across and
appeal to the audience.

The essay relies very much on Salatin's situated ethos because the audience is seeking his
credibility. We know that Salatin is a third-generation farmer at Polyface Farm and that he is
very knowledgeable about the subject of food, both grown and factory-produced. The audience is
meant to trust his opinion and knowledge. Salatin does not outwardly draw on his situated ethos;
rather, it shows through his essay when he inserts bits of the knowledge that he has about the
subject. He explicitly states his credibility only once when he talks about people asking him
questions when they visit his farm. The rest of the essay consists of Salatin including everything
that he knows about food, obviously gained from years of experience with food on the farm and
his extensive knowledge on the subject as a whole. He discusses the indigenous food, which he
would more or less be an expert on given his experience growing it, and the fact that it being
unsafe 'has no scientific backing' (Salatin 188). Salatin's use of his situated ethos makes him
more credible and thus the audience is more likely to believe his argument and agree with him.
The invented ethos lies in Salatin's good will. He is advocating a change in the way we eat and
he has the audience in mind when he does so. He evokes emotions, which lends itself to the
pathetic aspect of his essay, in the audience and calls us to action because he believes that his
argument is something that everyone should care about. The reader can see how he is trying to
get the audience to change the way they eat and take control through his writing style. He
addresses the audience directly by using rhetorical questions that he answers within his
argument. He repeatedly asks the audience about freedoms, specifically when he first begins the
meat of his argument. He asks, 'what could be a more basic freedom than the freedom to choose
what to feed [his] three-trillion-member internal community' (Salatin 189). It is evident
throughout the essay that Salatin's credibility plays into his invented ethos mainly because of his
good will. His intentions are clear throughout the essay; he wants to convince the audience to
make the change, to take back control of their lives, for the betterment of their lives and freedom.
Salatin draws in his situated ethos and invented ethos in order to make his argument more clear
and to show his beliefs about food. He does this in this way because he denounces regulations on
farming from the government. His beliefs on free farming and the freedom to choose the foods
we create and consume are the basis for why he is arguing this point to begin with. Allowing his
knowledge and sincerity to show through in his argument creates a sense of connectedness to the
audience because they can relate to what Salatin is trying to say.

Salatin's appeal to pathos is very strong because he knows how to appeal to the emotions
of the audience. He is looking to ignite a sense of righteous indignation from the audience and a
sense of anger over the loss of freedom and control over what we eat. He uses specific examples
to enforce the points he makes to evoke that emotion from the audience such as when he touches
on the Dred Scott ruling. When he touches on things like the Dred Scott case, he is playing on
our emotions on the right to be free and how the audience, as Americans, views the right to be
free. Salatin's point is to arouse the will to make a change; he wants the audience to take control
of the way he or she eats. He outlines specific ways that people can reclaim their food freedom
and that all they have to do is find the will to do it. The emotion that Salatin targets is
rhetorically effective for the overall argument because he says, 'a reasonable person' would ask
for a Food Emancipation Proclamation' (Salatin 189). With that statement he means to allude to
the truthfulness of his argument and that he wants the audience to want a change based on what
he has said so far. Salatin also says that, 'if things are going to change, it is up to you and me to
make the change' (Salatin 191). Here he is also trying to instill the want and the need to change.
Salatin does use enargeia in his essay when he address what has happened to food, why the
audience should care, and what food has done to our freedom. He plays the freedom card
throughout his essay because he knows Americans' feelings on freedom in general. This is meant
to spark the motivation to regain control on the things that we should have control of in our
everyday lives, which is Salatin's main point throughout the entirety of the essay.

The benefits of a strong logical, ethical, and pathetic appeal are evident in Salatin's essay
as his argument is made much more convincing for the audience. The reader wanted to make the
change by the end of the end of the essay because of the strong appeal to emotion. It is evident
that pathos was most advantageous to Salatin's argument because it was simple to appeal to the
emotions of freedom. Salatin was very aware of who his audience was, creating a much more
effective claim that was easy to accept. Overall, Salatin created a convincing argument be
engaging each rhetorical proof in a rhetorically effective way to get his argument across.
