Susan B Anthony Essay Research Paper Friends
Susan B. Anthony Essay, Research Paper
Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under the indictment for the alleged offense of holding voted at the last presidential election without holding a lawful right to vote.
It shall be my work this eventide to turn out to you that in therefore vote, I non merely committed no offense, but, alternatively merely exercised my citizen s rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any province to deny.
In 1872 Susan B. Anthony broke the jurisprudence by voting, in order to convey attending to her cause of adult females s right to vote. In making so she made one of the greatest political statements this state had of all time seen. This heroic address is the consequence of that courageous action. In her address On a Women s Rights to Vote Susan B. Anthony confidently states her ability to turn out non merely that she committed no offense, but that she simply exercised her constitutional right to vote.
Aristotle s three manners of cogent evidence poignancy, ethos, and Sons will be used to deductively analyse this controversial address, in order, to do it easier for you to understand merely how good orchestrated of an statement Ms. Anthony nowadayss. Ethos, an entreaty based on the trustiness of the talker can be seen at the really beginning of her address when she meekly addresses her audience as Friends and fellow citizens. In turn toing her audience this manner she gives off the character of being in chumminess with her audience and in making so she puts herself and her audience on a common field.
However, her temperament rapidly alterations from one of a low lady to an enraged and vocal trailblazer. Quoting one of the United States most well-thought-of paperss, the preamble of the Federal Constitution, she gives concrete grounds that her statement is a more than valid 1. This is a great illustration of how she uses Son in her address, which is an entreaty to good ground. In this state of affairs, one can non deny the fact that the fundamental law holds good logical thinking. It besides entreaties to another manner, poignancy, which is an entreaty to emotions and profoundly held values. The United States Constitution states the most cardinal and of import values held by American society, doing her statement to strike a note with every U.S. citizen without respect to sex, race, or faith. Susan rebelliously points out that the preamble provinces: We the people of the United States, in order to organize a more perfect brotherhood set up justness, insure domestic repose, supply for the common defence, promote the general public assistance, and procure the approvals of autonomy to ourselves and our descendants, do ordain and set up this Fundamental law for the United States of America. Susan goes on to state that in no topographic point in the preamble does it of all time province anything that could perchance take one to reason that this statement excludes adult females or any portion of the population of the United States for that affair. Appealing to pathos she states that it was we, the people ; non we the white male citizens ; nor yet we, the male citizens ; but we, the
whole people, who formed the Union. Hence, she strongly believes that the whole people should profit from those advantages of the Union.
Susan s statement begins to arouse great emotion in those people who both support and contemn her positions on adult females s right to vote. She goes on to state, It is a downright jeer to speak to adult females of their enjoyment of the approvals of autonomy while they are denied the agencies of procuring them. Clearly an emotional statement that shuns members of the American society ( that one assumes are individuals of the opposite sex ) who oppose her position that all U.S. citizens have the right to vote. She ne’er specifically labels this group of resistance but she does vividly depict them and in a most contemptuous mode. She says, To them this authorities has no merely powers derived from the consent of the governed. To them this authorities is non a democracy. It is non a democracy. It is an abominable nobility ; a hateful oligarchy of sex ; the most hateful nobility of all time established on the face of the Earth ; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the hapless. An oligarchy of acquisition, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy of race, where the Saxon regulations the African, might be endured. In depicting those who oppose her statement, she uses the maneuver of poignancy in two ways. First Susan vividly and concretely exposing their ignorance in simply saying what they believe and in making so she evidently cholers those whom hold such positions. The 2nd manner this statement evokes emotion from her audience is by taking the audience to deductively ground out that those whom oppose her are, in general, rich white males. These are the same rich white males that oppress the common adult male, the African, and, of class, adult females. Using this method she creates a common enemy and unites all of those U.S. citizens being oppressed by this dogmatism.
Susan s concluding persuasive maneuver is one of logic. She states how Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier define a citizen. A citizen is a individual in the United States, entitled to vote and keep office. Hence, Susan says The lone inquiry left to be settled now is: Are adult females individuals? And I barely believe any of our oppositions will hold the boldness to state they are non. Bing individuals, so adult females are citizens ; and no province has a right to do any jurisprudence, or to implement any old jurisprudence, that shall foreshorten their privileges or unsusceptibilities. It is apparently impossible for person to reasonably argue against this logic, which makes Susan s statement about incontestable.
Through measuring Susan s address utilizing the manners of cogent evidence and basic concluding one can clearly see that Susan B. Anthony states her statement in an intelligent and reputable manner. She proves without a uncertainty non merely that she committed no offense but that the Torahs that provinces have made, in order, to maintain adult females from voting are unfair and contradictory to the United States Constitution, which is supreme and incontestable jurisprudence.
1. Anthony, Susan. On Women s Right to vote.
Saxton Speakers Bureau. 1873. 10 September 2001