Rhetorical Omnipresence

Fifty Hours Left Wounded on a Field narrates Whitman's experiences speaking with a wounded soldier during the civil war. Similar to the section from Leaves of Grass where Whitman cares for a runaway slave, the entry balances between empathetic concern and unbiased tale renunciation. One of the most impressive aspects to Whitman's narrative technique is his ability to unfold a series of events without offering too explicit political stances- while the details may be skewed to support one side or the other, he rarely makes his own stance explicitly obvious. For example, he never says "I stand for the slaves stretching forth to receive freeness and liberty," he instead recounts his narratives utilizing specific details from his experiences to skew his story in a general direction, implicit and underlying,

"The runaway slave came to my house and stopt outside;
I heard his motions crackling the twigs of the woodpile;
Through the swung half-door of the kitchen I saw him limpsy and weak,
And went where he sat on a log, and led him in and assured him,
And brought water, and fill’d a tub for his sweated body and bruis’d feet,
And gave him a room that enter’d from my own, and gave him some coarse clean clothes,
And remember perfectly well his revolving eyes and his awkwardness,
And remember putting plasters on the galls of his neck and ankles;
He staid with me a week before he was recuperated and pass’d north;" (Leaves of Grass)


"Here is a case of a soldier I found among the crowded cots in the Patent-office. He likes to have some one to talk to, and we will listen to him. [...] He answers that several of the rebels, soldiers and others, came to him at one time and another. A couple of them, who were together, spoke roughly and sarcastically, but nothing worse. [...] But he retains a good heart, and is at present on the gain. (It is not uncommon for the men to remain on the field this way, one, two, or even four or five days.)" (Specimen Day Fifty Hours Left Wounded on a Field).


Each of these two tales, while different, retain an attempt at unbiasness- however, instantaneously expose the truth that no story could ever be unbiased, regardless of authorial talent. Each example of the story does not explicate too obvious of a position- he takes care of the slave, yet doesn't quite celebrate him. He feels empathy toward the soldier fighting in the war, but is tentative to admit which side he wishes to support. His stance remains ambiguous. However, even through this tale recount, one recognizes specific details and dictorial decisions which, ultimately, skew the story one way or another. For example, one might realize Whitman's talk(s) with a soldier extended into much more detail and subjects, techniques, political standpoints, post-war soldier insurance, importance of slavery, yet he consciously decided to narrate the soldier was left alone for days, met with soldiers who bad mouthed him (yet withheld from inacting violence), and that this occurance was normal. Just the same as Leaves of Grass includes several specific and chosen details- twigs breaking on a woodpile, the weak and sickly disposition of the slave, the duration of his visit, so on and so forth. Each of the two, while not explicitly taking political stances, evoke emotions such as empathy from the reader- empathy being a fairly persuasive technique, Whitman is able to alter the positions of his readers even without taking an overt position. These two entries highlight the idea that stories, regardless of a writers talent, always have some sort of rhetorical bias.










http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WhiPro1.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=25&division=div2