A short plug: There is a very powerful movie about women's rights called Ironed Jawed Angels, which accurately portrays the brutalities that these women faced like Susan B. Anthony. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in learning more about the situation during that day.
Susan B. Anthony wrote the address that I read in 1873, three years after the 15th amendment was ratified, giving blacks, but not women, the right to vote. This caused a lot of turmoil among women's rights activists because they felt that sex, almost over race, should not be a reason to disfranchise a major portion of the population.
I particularly think it is interesting that women's rights during the 19th century were very reminiscent of the Revolutionary War rhetoric. Both written and verbal arguments followed similar patterns from the Revolutionary War except that instead of being repressed by the King, they were being repressed by men. For instance, during the Seneca Falls convention these women put forth the Declaration of Sentiments where they borrowed the wording of the Declaration of Independence to show that women were endowed with the same unalienable rights as men: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal." Thus, we see that not only are is a similar wording and voice used, but these women are extremely passionate about the cause.
I feel like the two speeches I read follow this same pattern of drawing on the passion and the rhetoric of earlier revolutionary writing. For instance, Susan B. Anthony quoted the Preamble to the Constitution in her address and uses the actual words from the document to develop her point. She is using the legitimacy and authority of the historical documents to show that women's right to vote should never have been an issue because they should have always had the right to vote.
Overall, I would definitely place these speeches in the same category as some of the other revolutionary pieces that we have read. They are written and given because there is passion and there is change that needs to take place.
I particularly think it is interesting that women's rights during the 19th century were very reminiscent of the Revolutionary War rhetoric. Both written and verbal arguments followed similar patterns from the Revolutionary War except that instead of being repressed by the King, they were being repressed by men. For instance, during the Seneca Falls convention these women put forth the Declaration of Sentiments where they borrowed the wording of the Declaration of Independence to show that women were endowed with the same unalienable rights as men: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal." Thus, we see that not only are is a similar wording and voice used, but these women are extremely passionate about the cause.
I feel like the two speeches I read follow this same pattern of drawing on the passion and the rhetoric of earlier revolutionary writing. For instance, Susan B. Anthony quoted the Preamble to the Constitution in her address and uses the actual words from the document to develop her point. She is using the legitimacy and authority of the historical documents to show that women's right to vote should never have been an issue because they should have always had the right to vote.
Overall, I would definitely place these speeches in the same category as some of the other revolutionary pieces that we have read. They are written and given because there is passion and there is change that needs to take place.
Interesting take on these speeches. It totally makes sense, though--they ARE revolutionary. Women had been the lower class--or at least, not equal class--for most of history. Using the the language of the Constitution would really pluck people's heart strings, if not their nerves. This kind of boldness was needed in an era where nationalism had taken hold of the world, but women were frequently left out, in terms of equal rights, of the "nation" part of it.
ReplyDelete