Summary Of Susan B Anthony Women's Right To Vote

Feminist, Susan Anthony in her speech, “Women’s Right to Vote,” (1873) argues that women have a right to vote because the constitution clearly states ‘we the people’ and are women not people? She supports her claim by first claiming that she had the right to vote because the constitution clearly states that she does, then she brings out evidence from the preamble of the Federal Constitution and addresses how it says “we” not “males”, next she criticizes the government for being sexist and for all the wrongdoings that the government does, lastly she leaves the audience with the question of, ”Are women persons?” and she makes a statement about how it is similar to the unnecessary racism against negroes. Anthony’s purpose it to inform the audience

Anthony’s speech she uses ethos by gathering evidence from the Constitution to back her up so that people will take her seriously and trust her. She also sounds very intelligent which usually helps people trust you because they think you know what you are talking about. She talks about how in the preamble of the Federal Constitution it clearly states, “We, the people.” She goes on to describe how it doesn’t say, “We, the white male citizens,” or “We, the male citizens,” but ,”We, the people.” That means everybody as a whole is guaranteed the blessings of liberty. She also uses ethos by using persuasion and confidence. When you are confident people are going to trust you know what you are talking about. In persuasion she talks about how, “ It is mockery to talk to women of their enjoyment of the blessing of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of securing them provided by this democratic-republican government- the ballot.” She uses this because I am sure there are women listening and this would probably get them riled up and they would want to stand up and do something about it. She sounds very educated and you can tell she knows her stuff. She talks about how the law is practically being broken and she backs it up by using evidence from the actual law. She says that it is a violation of the supreme law of the land. When she has all of this evidence it makes her very trustworthy because it can’t be wrong. She also cites her sources so that you could go back and check if she was right so this makes you think of her as a credible source. She specifically does this when she talks about how Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen as a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office. So she shows her source and this backs up what she is trying to say. Women are citizens which therefore means they are entitled to vote and hold office. She ends with this ethos. Women are people right? Or would you be that brave to