Rhetorical Analysis Of Susan B. Anthony's Speech
Susan B. Anthony was born on February 15th 1820, in Adams, Massachusetts. She taught for 15 years before becoming involved in civil movements. Yet because she was a woman, she wasn’t allowed to speak in rallies. Because of this, she and Elizabeth Cady Stanton created the woman’s rights movement in 1852. In 1853, Anthony began to campaign for women’s property rights in New York State legislatures. This lead to a new law in the New York State in 1853 to create the Married Women’s property Bill, which allowed married women to own property, keep their own wages, and have custody of their children. These changes were not enough though, both Anthony and Stanton continuing to campaign for more liberal divorce laws in NY.
Later through the years, …show more content…
She spoke about the U.S constitution and pointed out “we, the people” not “we, the male citizens.” She then challenged her audience to answer “Are women persons?” I believe the speech is both informative and persuasive because she brings up information about the constitution and she expresses how she feels about it. In her speech, it’s like she’s almost mocking her male audience by saying. In other words, the beginning of her speech basically says, because I am a woman, I am not allowed to vote. I’m calling it out and here is why. The main point of the speech is that she wants to fight for her right to vote and point out that it is men and women, not just men. To wrap it up, she ends her speech in a sarcastic, witty way by challenging her male audience by saying the law states that all persons of citizenship should have these rights, but the law discriminates against her because she is a woman, therefore does that not make her a person? I think learning about this speech made me feel lucky because without her and others involved with her movement; we wouldn’t be able to have the right to vote. It also angers me that this happened in history because it is 2016 and I still believe it is ridiculous how you could not vote because you were just a woman. It is upsetting because even though we have come a long way in women’s history, there are still some issues that still
Later through the years, …show more content…
She spoke about the U.S constitution and pointed out “we, the people” not “we, the male citizens.” She then challenged her audience to answer “Are women persons?” I believe the speech is both informative and persuasive because she brings up information about the constitution and she expresses how she feels about it. In her speech, it’s like she’s almost mocking her male audience by saying. In other words, the beginning of her speech basically says, because I am a woman, I am not allowed to vote. I’m calling it out and here is why. The main point of the speech is that she wants to fight for her right to vote and point out that it is men and women, not just men. To wrap it up, she ends her speech in a sarcastic, witty way by challenging her male audience by saying the law states that all persons of citizenship should have these rights, but the law discriminates against her because she is a woman, therefore does that not make her a person? I think learning about this speech made me feel lucky because without her and others involved with her movement; we wouldn’t be able to have the right to vote. It also angers me that this happened in history because it is 2016 and I still believe it is ridiculous how you could not vote because you were just a woman. It is upsetting because even though we have come a long way in women’s history, there are still some issues that still