Mary Church Terrell, the honorary president of the National Association of Colored Women, gave a speech which sought to uncover the faulty premises upon which the evils of lynching were excused. In it she challenges the common misconceptions of the public, which have been spawned by the Southerners and ignorantly lapped up by the Northerners. Terrell attempts to reach the passive bystanders of lynching by exposing the hideous truth, the actual cause for these unspeakable crimes, inciting in her audience an overwhelming urge to act against the injustice and cruelty. Terrell hopes to stimulate their minds into thinking logically about the black population rather than blindly following the characterization of negroes as presented by slandering dominance-seeking Southerners in her speech “Lynching from a Negro’s Point of View” (1904) as a means to stop the horrifying and widespread trend of lynching.
By portraying the South as the insidious antagonist, she absolves the North of some of the blame in the torture and murders inflicted by whites upon blacks. Terrell makes sure to showcase the guilt of the Southern states, pointing out their sinister deeds: “The South has so industriously, so persistently and eloquently preached the inferiority of the negro, that the North has apparently been converted to this view”. While the citizens of the North should rightfully support the anti-lynching cause, they are partially excused because they, too, are victims – duped by the malicious well-to-do from Dixieland. Undoubtedly, though, after Wells’ systematic enumeration and deconstruction of their lies, her audience must rightfully join the fight against lynching. When she elaborates on the deeper causes of lynching as “race hatred” and “the lawlessness so prevalent in the section where nine-tenths of the lynchings occur”, the implication is made that tangible support must come in the form of a way to regulate the South, whether it be with the physical presence of troops or just laws that will restrain the strains of violence. Her speech casts the Northerners not as participants in the crime, but as enablers of the South that permits these atrocities rather than rallying against them.
Terrell also works to justify the humanity of the black race, negating rumors that the majority of blacks are uneducated heathens. She denies that blacks are an inherently inferior race, giving the example of their loyalty during the trying years of the Civil War. Rather than abandon the families for whom they had served, when the “men of the South were off fighting to keep the negro in bondage, their mothers, wives and daughters were entrusted to the black man’s care. How faithfully and loyally he kept his sacred trust the records of history attest!” She shows the blacks’ clean record and faithfulness even to those who had mistreated them. If the blacks refused to retaliate against the white women while their men were away, how could they possibly condone rape – as thought by common opinion? Her proof of black peoples’ humanity also extends into her second argument – that “Negroes who have been educated in Northern institutions of learning… neither assault white women nor commit other crimes, as a rule.” They are thankful for the education that they received and use their knowledge to integrate into society as productive citizens. When she makes the point that blacks are just as capable of thought and emotion as whites, she can start to form a positive relationship with the white population. The whites should not only trust the blacks to act as decent members of society, but they (especially the women) should support them in their quest for peace and equal rights.
Terrell does a make a more explicit concession about her race that the uncompromising firebrand Ida B. Wells. By excluding the lesser educated negroes from her argument she decreases the wide array of people that she must defend in her speech. After she reports that those who have been accused by rape had not been “taught that he was the equal of white people” without denying that they were possibly “ignorant, repulsive in appearance and as near the brute creation as it is possible for a human being to be” rendered by the Southern testimonials, she separates them from the rest of her race, creating the image that these repulsive men are the true anomalies of blacks. She even suggests that they are a product of whites who appreciate their lack of motivation to attain social equality before she returns to blame the South for the common view that the entire black population is backwards. “Whenever Southern white people discuss lynching, they are prone to slander the whole negro race.” Were Terrell a statistician today she would surely argue about the sample size of the black people and the randomness of the sample included in the analysis of a large, diverse group of individuals who happen to be grouped together based only upon skin color.
Terrell continues her job as a whistleblower, pointing out faults in the media as a whole and she condemns the lack of support from religious leaders. When she blames the media she also warns the people to be careful about how they interpret the stories that they read since “it is not always possible to ascertain the facts from accounts in the newspapers.” It appears that the average reader must read between the lines to find truth in the published and printed articles, as they must realize when they attend church service. Appalled, Terrell reports, “Not only do ministers fail, as a rule, to protest strongly against the hanging and burning of negroes, but some actually condone the crime.” By explaining the logical errors that tarnish the credibility of claims against blacks and by pointing out the sources of misinformation, she makes her followers wary of the mental tricks set by other whites who will try to convince them that lynching is a legitimate way to punish perpetrators of the heinous crime of rape, who just happen to be black.
As a final testament to the truth that she has been telling, Terrell shows that she is not alone in decrying the Southern system of lynching. “In November, 1903, a manifesto [was] signed by delegates from all over the world was issued… by the International Socialist Bureau, protesting against the lynching of negroes in the United States.” She calls upon the morals and impartial judgment of a committee outside of the confines of the country – with a clearer view than those who are caught up in the skewed American media. While Terrell laments that “Lynching can never be suppressed in the South, until the masses of ignorant white people in that section are educated and lifted to a higher moral plane” she resurrects the hope that the enlightenment of the masses combined with collective action can eventually stop the lynching. Terrell pokes holes in the cognitive schema set up and promoted by whites to excuse lynching, revealing the truth and requesting that some sort of action is taken.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Discussion of Ida B. Wells
Two theories, claiming different aims of rhetorical discourse, have their origins in ancient Greece – one claiming that rhetoric is power used to persuade others, the other insisting that words ought to be used to help enlighten others by providing clear and understandable explanations. The written and spoken words of Ida B. Wells would falls within the second category since she strove to illuminate the issue of lynching and its true underlying causes so that people would join her crusade to stop the unnecessary racial violence. During the film Ida B. Wells: Passion for Justice she was depicted as an “investigative reporter before [such a profession existed].” The specific goal of her speech Southern Horrors: Lynch Law its All its Phases was to share the information that she thoroughly researched, articulating her conclusions so clearly and factually that no one would be able to deny the hidden motives of white perpetrators – that the main goal of all the violence was to stop strong blacks and discourage others from both integrating and rising into society.
Although Wells had many forces working against her, she continued to gain support both in America and abroad. Wells’ specialty was agitation, convincing others of the horrific nature of the lynching practice that had started to become commonplace. She stood apart from the accommodationist black community led by Booker T. Washington; she refused to passively wait around for the scraps of justice thrown down by white people. Wells needed to offer strong support that she was not stirring up a scene about nothing, that lynching was a legitimate problem and a scheme to keep black people out of positions of power. She needed to show her audience that these were hate crimes, though not simply aimed at protecting the purity of white Southern women. Through multiple examples Wells exposed the trends of hypocrisy among white southern men, who cared not about the injustice of white men raping black women and the lack of trial and protection for the convicted blacks. She also addressed the lack of progress that came from non-action and spoke of people moving West, where the racism was not quite so set or so strong. Her advice, though, for blacks in all locations was to use self defense rather than to passively hope for a miracle because the presence of a weapon had saved some people from impending threats.
As establishing ethos is key in all rhetoric, another rhetorical obstacle of the Wells’ campaign was establishing her credibility. Wells was a black woman with tremendous ability for analytical thinking and a strong writing power, but she grew up in a time where blacks were mistrusted and women were just beginning to take an active role in the public and political spheres. She needed to convince her audience that she knew what she was talking about, and to prove that she incorporated the reports of white newspaper columnists so that no one could deny her stories lest they wanted to deny the truthfulness of prominent white citizens. By using countless stories, she cited large amounts of evidence to build her case by identifying the trends that she spotted.
It must be remembered that Wells remained dedicated to her cause despite the threats that she faced by writing pieces that portrayed Southern citizens in a controversial manner. She enraged the whites by questioning the white women’s virtue, by showing hypocrisy of the white male’s dedication to stopping sexual violence and undermined the excuses for lynching and inequality present throughout the country. Despite having her office ransacked and physically destroyed and warned to stay away from the South, Wells’ persistence never wavered, which added to her credibility. This topic was so important that people were risking their lives to spread information to others. Lynching was such a horrendous and pervasive crime that everyone else needed to be alert to its true causes, standing up just as steadfast and relentless as Wells. She took the measures she thought necessary to bring an end to this reign of terror and sought to defend the blacks so that they could take their rightful place in society as equals. In the face of adversity, and perhaps partially because of it, she was able to rally supporters at home and in Europe, where she co-founded the London Anti-lynching committee.
As previously mentioned, Wells was able to generate more support for her arguments than her own personal stories, though her life experience and culture did lend a hand in her speech and campaign. Primarily her life events had given her the passion to write about these topics; she was a logical writer, but it was clear that she was not only invested in the stopping lynching but absolutely adamant. While anyone can cite sources and draw conclusions, Wells was able to use firsthand experience as the inspiration for her discourse. She could speak about her friend from her hometown that was brutally murdered, bearing testimony to the strength and benevolence of his character. She was full of fervor, which she controlled to articulate the indignation of being forcibly removed from the ladies’ car, and her strength was that she was able to take her righteous rage that could be used for a seething rant and harness that power to support the conclusions and solutions that she meticulously laid out.
Although Wells had many forces working against her, she continued to gain support both in America and abroad. Wells’ specialty was agitation, convincing others of the horrific nature of the lynching practice that had started to become commonplace. She stood apart from the accommodationist black community led by Booker T. Washington; she refused to passively wait around for the scraps of justice thrown down by white people. Wells needed to offer strong support that she was not stirring up a scene about nothing, that lynching was a legitimate problem and a scheme to keep black people out of positions of power. She needed to show her audience that these were hate crimes, though not simply aimed at protecting the purity of white Southern women. Through multiple examples Wells exposed the trends of hypocrisy among white southern men, who cared not about the injustice of white men raping black women and the lack of trial and protection for the convicted blacks. She also addressed the lack of progress that came from non-action and spoke of people moving West, where the racism was not quite so set or so strong. Her advice, though, for blacks in all locations was to use self defense rather than to passively hope for a miracle because the presence of a weapon had saved some people from impending threats.
As establishing ethos is key in all rhetoric, another rhetorical obstacle of the Wells’ campaign was establishing her credibility. Wells was a black woman with tremendous ability for analytical thinking and a strong writing power, but she grew up in a time where blacks were mistrusted and women were just beginning to take an active role in the public and political spheres. She needed to convince her audience that she knew what she was talking about, and to prove that she incorporated the reports of white newspaper columnists so that no one could deny her stories lest they wanted to deny the truthfulness of prominent white citizens. By using countless stories, she cited large amounts of evidence to build her case by identifying the trends that she spotted.
It must be remembered that Wells remained dedicated to her cause despite the threats that she faced by writing pieces that portrayed Southern citizens in a controversial manner. She enraged the whites by questioning the white women’s virtue, by showing hypocrisy of the white male’s dedication to stopping sexual violence and undermined the excuses for lynching and inequality present throughout the country. Despite having her office ransacked and physically destroyed and warned to stay away from the South, Wells’ persistence never wavered, which added to her credibility. This topic was so important that people were risking their lives to spread information to others. Lynching was such a horrendous and pervasive crime that everyone else needed to be alert to its true causes, standing up just as steadfast and relentless as Wells. She took the measures she thought necessary to bring an end to this reign of terror and sought to defend the blacks so that they could take their rightful place in society as equals. In the face of adversity, and perhaps partially because of it, she was able to rally supporters at home and in Europe, where she co-founded the London Anti-lynching committee.
As previously mentioned, Wells was able to generate more support for her arguments than her own personal stories, though her life experience and culture did lend a hand in her speech and campaign. Primarily her life events had given her the passion to write about these topics; she was a logical writer, but it was clear that she was not only invested in the stopping lynching but absolutely adamant. While anyone can cite sources and draw conclusions, Wells was able to use firsthand experience as the inspiration for her discourse. She could speak about her friend from her hometown that was brutally murdered, bearing testimony to the strength and benevolence of his character. She was full of fervor, which she controlled to articulate the indignation of being forcibly removed from the ladies’ car, and her strength was that she was able to take her righteous rage that could be used for a seething rant and harness that power to support the conclusions and solutions that she meticulously laid out.
Rewriting Senator Doolittle’s “Divided Sovereignty” Speech
Many extreme views have been voiced concerning whether the state or whether the nation should have control over the legislation in each individual state. While a majority of voting citizens in Southern states, mostly affiliated with the Democratic political party, seeks to maintain legislative control of their own land, many citizens of the North align with Republicans and lobby for the ability of the government in Washington to interfere when they largely disagree with the state’s decisions. Leaving states to their own devices is a simple solution for those serving in government who do not wish to offend anyone. It seems fair because it permits each state to generate rules to fit the lifestyles and will of its citizens; this way each state can specifically cater to the demands of the people. Imposing an absolute law, though, would ensure that the states remain united and rooted in the traditions and values that the country was founded upon; the overarching government would not hide in ignorance, but rather use power to negate state malpractices. Both these views are limited by the black or white type fallacy. While people argue over national sovereignty and state sovereignty, they fail to understand that both institutions have that same ability, which keeps the other in check, functioning within its own power as outlined by our Constitution.
A healthy view of government, as is paralleled in everyday life, incorporates moderation. The issue of how state laws are regulated is not an “either-or” question, whose solution falls on radical, opposing ends of the spectrum. This extremist point of view leaves no compromise to satisfy a large majority of the citizens. A scale does not always need to be tipped in favor of one method over another; two types of policy can happily exist in equilibrium. The duty and responsibility of government can, and should be, divided between the nation as a whole and individual sections of that nation to ensure that the will of the people is carried out. This dual process is enabled by a symbiosis outlined by the Constitution, beneficial to all, such as instances when two organisms benefit from their interactions. Supreme rule and need not come with absolute sovereignty of either the state or the nation; divided sovereignty can best represent the desires of the populace.
No one would argue that each citizen of the United States is also concurrently a citizen of their own state, whether their residence is located in the North or South. Then it is a small logical step to understand that makes each citizen is under the law of both the larger nation and the individual state. As assumed by the majority, the policies set by the United States government will conflict with the goals set by smaller territories. They worry that conflict will ensure and seek to predict a victor. States must seek to represent their citizens, whose preferences may very well differ from those of citizens in other locations; though as a representative of the United States each smaller territory should uphold the same fundamental values as set by the Constitution – the very same Constitution which limits the power of the government in Washington. There are provisions concerning the intersection of power between the nation and state, employing a functional system of checks and balances. All abide by the Constitution, working separately, to create a country that all can be proud to call home.
There is a fine middle ground between the extreme viewpoints, a solution which incorporates some of each radical notion in a compromise, from ideals which would cause great distress and unrest standing on their own. Imagine the nation as a tree, firmly rooted in the ground, whose branches reach into the upper limits of the sky. The tree exists in both spheres, but also at the intermediate area, where the roots transition into the stump, and the stump eventually divides, morphing into individual limbs. Those roots contain our shared historical background, embracing the freedom we gained when we separated from Great Britain and the monarchy. Those roots anchor us to our ideals, the identity which ties us to our country, keeping us united. As the branches stretch towards the heavens, they split off further and further – into counties, families, and finally individuals – each striving to fulfill their personal guarantee of a right to pursue happiness. Were the roots to shrivel and die so would the tree be crippled and eventually wither, and were the branches to stop reaching upwards towards their own goals and direction, there would be naught by a heap of branches upon the ground. Both elements of earth and air are necessary for the tree as are both elements of government, at varying levels, responsible for the contentment of the United States and the individual states.
Let us no longer argue in favor of absolute power for the nation or the state. Clearly, the best solution is divided sovereignty, splitting the weight of government between two. Both have a duty to represent the people and will seek to do so. When conflict arises, let us be guided by the Constitution, that great document which gives us the answer to solve these disputes. Let both the nation and the state fulfill their legislative responsibilities to their best ability!
A healthy view of government, as is paralleled in everyday life, incorporates moderation. The issue of how state laws are regulated is not an “either-or” question, whose solution falls on radical, opposing ends of the spectrum. This extremist point of view leaves no compromise to satisfy a large majority of the citizens. A scale does not always need to be tipped in favor of one method over another; two types of policy can happily exist in equilibrium. The duty and responsibility of government can, and should be, divided between the nation as a whole and individual sections of that nation to ensure that the will of the people is carried out. This dual process is enabled by a symbiosis outlined by the Constitution, beneficial to all, such as instances when two organisms benefit from their interactions. Supreme rule and need not come with absolute sovereignty of either the state or the nation; divided sovereignty can best represent the desires of the populace.
No one would argue that each citizen of the United States is also concurrently a citizen of their own state, whether their residence is located in the North or South. Then it is a small logical step to understand that makes each citizen is under the law of both the larger nation and the individual state. As assumed by the majority, the policies set by the United States government will conflict with the goals set by smaller territories. They worry that conflict will ensure and seek to predict a victor. States must seek to represent their citizens, whose preferences may very well differ from those of citizens in other locations; though as a representative of the United States each smaller territory should uphold the same fundamental values as set by the Constitution – the very same Constitution which limits the power of the government in Washington. There are provisions concerning the intersection of power between the nation and state, employing a functional system of checks and balances. All abide by the Constitution, working separately, to create a country that all can be proud to call home.
There is a fine middle ground between the extreme viewpoints, a solution which incorporates some of each radical notion in a compromise, from ideals which would cause great distress and unrest standing on their own. Imagine the nation as a tree, firmly rooted in the ground, whose branches reach into the upper limits of the sky. The tree exists in both spheres, but also at the intermediate area, where the roots transition into the stump, and the stump eventually divides, morphing into individual limbs. Those roots contain our shared historical background, embracing the freedom we gained when we separated from Great Britain and the monarchy. Those roots anchor us to our ideals, the identity which ties us to our country, keeping us united. As the branches stretch towards the heavens, they split off further and further – into counties, families, and finally individuals – each striving to fulfill their personal guarantee of a right to pursue happiness. Were the roots to shrivel and die so would the tree be crippled and eventually wither, and were the branches to stop reaching upwards towards their own goals and direction, there would be naught by a heap of branches upon the ground. Both elements of earth and air are necessary for the tree as are both elements of government, at varying levels, responsible for the contentment of the United States and the individual states.
Let us no longer argue in favor of absolute power for the nation or the state. Clearly, the best solution is divided sovereignty, splitting the weight of government between two. Both have a duty to represent the people and will seek to do so. When conflict arises, let us be guided by the Constitution, that great document which gives us the answer to solve these disputes. Let both the nation and the state fulfill their legislative responsibilities to their best ability!
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Analysis of Sojourner Truth’s May 9, 1867 speech
*Do not be stupid enough to plagiarize.*
During the Reconstruction Period following the American Civil War the social climate buzzed with the forces of different social groups clashing wildly. While there was a unified hope to improve the country, oftentimes this shared dream led to arguments concerning the best way to accomplish this goal. Many realized that the fight for individual rights of persons within specific social groups was essential to fully realizing the Founding Fathers’ ideals of the new country. Sojourner Truth jumped into the heated debate of women’s suffrage, advocating for this right specifically in the name of black women, and spoke at the annual convention of the American Equal Rights Association. Truth’s speech given on May 9, 1867 calls upon men to think both morally about the implications of not handing women the vote and rationally about the benefits of women’s suffrage.
Opening the speech, Truth attributes the necessity of her speech as a reaction to a lack of impetus compelling power-holders to vote, giving suffrage to black women. She exclaims, “There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about colored women!” Truth refers to her identity as an 80 year-old-woman seeking justice; she uses this social goal as a personal mission, appropriating the purpose of gaining rights for the hardworking, deserving black women whom she personally knows, taking u this task because of her moral responsibility. She also indirectly invokes the divine wisdom of a God, who allows her to be kept on earth for this last stage of her life. She explains, “I suppose I am yet to break the chain,” changing social norms as an agent of God, establishing her credibility as a doer of right. Truth’s speech serves to establish ethos, her personal credibility in her identity as a black woman, by citing her intimate knowledge of the situations which make women’s suffrage necessary, and so she works to correct the injustice by convincing others to join the cause.
Although many of the arguments throughout the essay are catered towards certain groups of people, Truth does make a quick rational point about equality of men and women as human beings: “[The women] work in the filed and do as much work [as the men], but do not get pay. We do as much, we eat as much, we want as much.” And even though this argument cuts straight to the point, the deeper underlying themes of humanity and equality chime in to support Truth in her quest for absolute equality in terms of citizenship. This rapidly established point does continue to support the rest of Truth’s argument aimed at convincing the men that women’s suffrage is necessary, the first strategy based upon morals and the second focused on logic.
Since men and women are so fundamentally equal, it is only right that man relinquish his control over woman. Truth tarnishes the reputation of the already powerful white male citizen by casting his role as parallel to a slaveholder. “You have been having our right so long, that you think, like a slaveholder, that you own us,” chides Truth, yet she makes the smart decision to empathize with the men rather than simply castigate them. Instead of completely damaging their credibility, leaving the men in a position to simply deny the charges and to create more excuses for not giving women the vote, Truth quells the visceral response to instantly reject her ideas by conceding that their role in achieving women’s suffrage is difficult, though she hints that this is their chance to rectify their past misdeeds. Truth demonstrates that she is capable of conducting herself with grace and fairness, setting an example of a logical, mindful woman even in the face of what could be a very emotional issue.
Truth’s second argument uses the appeal of logic to convince men of the benefits that will follow women’s suffrage. When the women receive their full power of citizenship, they will be self-sufficient. She talks of the women’s capabilities. While the women must ask men to help change the current social system, once they achieve this change they will no longer lean upon the shoulders of men for support for they will have the resources to work out problems on their own. Truth promises, “When we get our rights, we shall not have to come to you for money, for then we shall have enough money of our own,” and reassures the men that women will continue to work as they have done, not becoming lazy, but rather continuing their lives in the same way – just adding another task to their list of responsibilities, though one they would gladly bear. Truth also alludes to the fact that women can stop spending their energy on the fight for equality and that their effort can better be used to improve other aspects of society. Truth confides, “I want to see women have their rights, and then there will be no more war… I hope that this will be the last battle what will be in the world. Fighting for rights.” Once this aspect of society is corrected, peace and contentment will follow with the great involvement of women in society.
Truth demonstrates her persistence in pursuing suffrage for black women, showing men that her demands and discussion cannot simply be ignored or quashed. She ends the speech with, “There I am determined to go, not to stop till I get there to that beautiful place, and I do not mean to stop till I get there.” Truth shows the importance that women’s suffrage has in her life – so much so that she even notices the lack of equality between German women and men. Even though she addresses a crowd full of people who support the idea of women’s suffrage at the American Equal Rights Association event, Truth speaks out across to others – specifically men – who are opposed to the idea of giving women the vote. Truth uses her identity as an insider source of knowledge and methodically seeks to explain why the vote would not only benefit women, but the American society as a whole.
During the Reconstruction Period following the American Civil War the social climate buzzed with the forces of different social groups clashing wildly. While there was a unified hope to improve the country, oftentimes this shared dream led to arguments concerning the best way to accomplish this goal. Many realized that the fight for individual rights of persons within specific social groups was essential to fully realizing the Founding Fathers’ ideals of the new country. Sojourner Truth jumped into the heated debate of women’s suffrage, advocating for this right specifically in the name of black women, and spoke at the annual convention of the American Equal Rights Association. Truth’s speech given on May 9, 1867 calls upon men to think both morally about the implications of not handing women the vote and rationally about the benefits of women’s suffrage.
Opening the speech, Truth attributes the necessity of her speech as a reaction to a lack of impetus compelling power-holders to vote, giving suffrage to black women. She exclaims, “There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about colored women!” Truth refers to her identity as an 80 year-old-woman seeking justice; she uses this social goal as a personal mission, appropriating the purpose of gaining rights for the hardworking, deserving black women whom she personally knows, taking u this task because of her moral responsibility. She also indirectly invokes the divine wisdom of a God, who allows her to be kept on earth for this last stage of her life. She explains, “I suppose I am yet to break the chain,” changing social norms as an agent of God, establishing her credibility as a doer of right. Truth’s speech serves to establish ethos, her personal credibility in her identity as a black woman, by citing her intimate knowledge of the situations which make women’s suffrage necessary, and so she works to correct the injustice by convincing others to join the cause.
Although many of the arguments throughout the essay are catered towards certain groups of people, Truth does make a quick rational point about equality of men and women as human beings: “[The women] work in the filed and do as much work [as the men], but do not get pay. We do as much, we eat as much, we want as much.” And even though this argument cuts straight to the point, the deeper underlying themes of humanity and equality chime in to support Truth in her quest for absolute equality in terms of citizenship. This rapidly established point does continue to support the rest of Truth’s argument aimed at convincing the men that women’s suffrage is necessary, the first strategy based upon morals and the second focused on logic.
Since men and women are so fundamentally equal, it is only right that man relinquish his control over woman. Truth tarnishes the reputation of the already powerful white male citizen by casting his role as parallel to a slaveholder. “You have been having our right so long, that you think, like a slaveholder, that you own us,” chides Truth, yet she makes the smart decision to empathize with the men rather than simply castigate them. Instead of completely damaging their credibility, leaving the men in a position to simply deny the charges and to create more excuses for not giving women the vote, Truth quells the visceral response to instantly reject her ideas by conceding that their role in achieving women’s suffrage is difficult, though she hints that this is their chance to rectify their past misdeeds. Truth demonstrates that she is capable of conducting herself with grace and fairness, setting an example of a logical, mindful woman even in the face of what could be a very emotional issue.
Truth’s second argument uses the appeal of logic to convince men of the benefits that will follow women’s suffrage. When the women receive their full power of citizenship, they will be self-sufficient. She talks of the women’s capabilities. While the women must ask men to help change the current social system, once they achieve this change they will no longer lean upon the shoulders of men for support for they will have the resources to work out problems on their own. Truth promises, “When we get our rights, we shall not have to come to you for money, for then we shall have enough money of our own,” and reassures the men that women will continue to work as they have done, not becoming lazy, but rather continuing their lives in the same way – just adding another task to their list of responsibilities, though one they would gladly bear. Truth also alludes to the fact that women can stop spending their energy on the fight for equality and that their effort can better be used to improve other aspects of society. Truth confides, “I want to see women have their rights, and then there will be no more war… I hope that this will be the last battle what will be in the world. Fighting for rights.” Once this aspect of society is corrected, peace and contentment will follow with the great involvement of women in society.
Truth demonstrates her persistence in pursuing suffrage for black women, showing men that her demands and discussion cannot simply be ignored or quashed. She ends the speech with, “There I am determined to go, not to stop till I get there to that beautiful place, and I do not mean to stop till I get there.” Truth shows the importance that women’s suffrage has in her life – so much so that she even notices the lack of equality between German women and men. Even though she addresses a crowd full of people who support the idea of women’s suffrage at the American Equal Rights Association event, Truth speaks out across to others – specifically men – who are opposed to the idea of giving women the vote. Truth uses her identity as an insider source of knowledge and methodically seeks to explain why the vote would not only benefit women, but the American society as a whole.
Rhetorical Challenges of the Reconstruction
*Don't be stupid enough to plagiarize.*
Although the Confederates surrendered and the Civil War officially came to the end, a great sense of unease and tension settled into both the Northern and Southern states. There was not only a discomfort between the two previously opposing sides; a rift grew between the various factions of Republicans and a shift in the power dynamic between blacks and whites resulted in violence. Because the war was difficult on everyone, the losses incurred by individual citizens created bitterness and resentment. The dissenting opinions were difficult, if not impossible to reconcile. In addition, uncertainty of the future forced people to scramble around, vainly attempting to maintain the vestiges of their social status. Competition between different groups of people created power struggles both within the government structure and the broader social structure. The enormous task of unifying the nation needed to come about through the use of communication and rhetoric. Rhetorical challenges of the Reconstruction era concerned definition: defining exactly what had happened during and after the war as well as articulating solutions acceptable to the majority; chilling the fervid animosity and carrying the founding principles of the Founding Fathers into this period of turmoil were essential to achieve a state of placid equilibrium.
In order to choose the best course of action, it was necessary for the citizens to understand exactly what had happened during the four year period of the civil war. Individuals sought answers to explain their new identity and circumstances, and politicians hoped to explain the war in ways that would support their preferred course of action. As seen within the two opposing speeches given in Congress by Thaddeus Stevens and Henry Jarvis Raymond, the suggestions as to how to proceed in the period of Reconstruction depended heavily on the interpretation of both Northern and Southern actions during the war. A large portion of both of the speeches debated whether or not the confederate states had every truly left the Union and was subject to whims of Congress or whether the confederate states had only attempted to secede but failed when their troops surrendered. The ultimate interpretation, as persuaded by rhetorical acts, would shape the way in which the states would interact for years to come.
The rhetoricians of the 1850s also needed to define the values which were most important to their country; they needed to refer back to the Founding Fathers’ documents and decipher the true intent of the Declaration of Independence. The honored document raised questions about principles that shaped the country. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The documents begged the question, “Who is included in the category ‘men’?” Many scoffed that surely black men were not included in this category, that even though they were freed from slavery they could never be equals in society. Applying the document to the period of Reconstruction required a close inspection of the terms ‘man’, ‘citizen’, ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’. To hold in line with the great tradition of the first Americans, the citizens needed to understand these key aspects of their national identity to pave the way for a successful future. This understanding arose through the arguments thrown around in the public sphere.
The constantly shifting reinterpretation of revered American documents continues into the present. For instance, what rights enable “the pursuit of Happiness”? Or, conversely, what actions prevent “the pursuit of Happiness”? Another question arises when one’s “pursuit of Happiness” infringes on another person’s quest for fulfillment. It remains a necessary task to establish the important values to uphold as American citizens to unite as the entire American nation with common shared ideals. Values give direction and guidance to the shaping of policies – both domestic and foreign. Questions are most easily answered when information is presented clearly and precisely. Rhetoric attempts to define the world in order to sort out various problems. Rhetoric constantly seeks to explain nature and can be used to find solutions to all sorts of quandaries.
A second dilemma faced by the persons living during the time of Reconstruction was determining how best to make amends for injurious deeds. Rhetoric was an essential tool in shaping the argument for giving assistance to blacks. Although the black people had at least been delivered from bondage, a majority was flung into society still uneducated. The “forty acres and a mule” was, in a sense, part of the “American Dream”. The land symbolized their ability to work and gain profit for themselves, but the land with which they were presented was taken from white Southerners. While it was clear that the displaced blacks needed a place to go, the redistribution of land was deemed unfair by those whose land was taken. While it was clear that the blacks needed some help getting up on their own legs to support themselves, how to go about assisting them until they were capable of independence from whites remained a mystery. The Robin Hood style land redistribution did not fare well, and the hopes of blacks to remain separate from whites was shattered when property was returned to the whites who had fled, forcing blacks back onto the farms – working, again, for their ex-masters, but with a minimum wage. It seemed as though the institution of slavery had slightly changed and continue to shackle thousands of blacks to an unjust system. Rhetoric was required to illustrate the necessity of lessening the huge disparity between black and white citizens.
The question of assisting minorities, those who have been wronged, remains a heated issue today in the form of “affirmative action”. While affirmative action gives access to people who grew up with difficult conditions, attempting to correct for societal disadvantages, those who grew up with privilege see their seats at universities and job offers being snatched away from them. There is an ongoing debate about how to right injustices without providing a constant crutch. How much assistance is sufficient to rectify past crimes and current prejudice? The attempt to ensure fairness and equality for all entails multiple complexities, stemming both from present issues and historical origins. To sort out possible procedures, the goals and consequences of each such action must be firmly established with rhetoric so that an educated decision can be made.
Rhetoric establishes a situation, marking the conditions of a certain location and point in time. Although many individuals will cling to opposing views and will therefore contribute to public discourse with opposing rhetoric, rhetoric is always used to sway the opinions of others and rally people towards a certain cause or solution. The power of definition involved in rhetoric plays an integral role in debates, seeking to illuminate the true nature of each situation. Rhetoric conveys perceptions of some and alters the perceptions of others. While rhetoric can be used to muddle and confuse, it can also be used to clarify, and that is when it is most useful – generating solutions to overcome problems.
Although the Confederates surrendered and the Civil War officially came to the end, a great sense of unease and tension settled into both the Northern and Southern states. There was not only a discomfort between the two previously opposing sides; a rift grew between the various factions of Republicans and a shift in the power dynamic between blacks and whites resulted in violence. Because the war was difficult on everyone, the losses incurred by individual citizens created bitterness and resentment. The dissenting opinions were difficult, if not impossible to reconcile. In addition, uncertainty of the future forced people to scramble around, vainly attempting to maintain the vestiges of their social status. Competition between different groups of people created power struggles both within the government structure and the broader social structure. The enormous task of unifying the nation needed to come about through the use of communication and rhetoric. Rhetorical challenges of the Reconstruction era concerned definition: defining exactly what had happened during and after the war as well as articulating solutions acceptable to the majority; chilling the fervid animosity and carrying the founding principles of the Founding Fathers into this period of turmoil were essential to achieve a state of placid equilibrium.
In order to choose the best course of action, it was necessary for the citizens to understand exactly what had happened during the four year period of the civil war. Individuals sought answers to explain their new identity and circumstances, and politicians hoped to explain the war in ways that would support their preferred course of action. As seen within the two opposing speeches given in Congress by Thaddeus Stevens and Henry Jarvis Raymond, the suggestions as to how to proceed in the period of Reconstruction depended heavily on the interpretation of both Northern and Southern actions during the war. A large portion of both of the speeches debated whether or not the confederate states had every truly left the Union and was subject to whims of Congress or whether the confederate states had only attempted to secede but failed when their troops surrendered. The ultimate interpretation, as persuaded by rhetorical acts, would shape the way in which the states would interact for years to come.
The rhetoricians of the 1850s also needed to define the values which were most important to their country; they needed to refer back to the Founding Fathers’ documents and decipher the true intent of the Declaration of Independence. The honored document raised questions about principles that shaped the country. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The documents begged the question, “Who is included in the category ‘men’?” Many scoffed that surely black men were not included in this category, that even though they were freed from slavery they could never be equals in society. Applying the document to the period of Reconstruction required a close inspection of the terms ‘man’, ‘citizen’, ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’. To hold in line with the great tradition of the first Americans, the citizens needed to understand these key aspects of their national identity to pave the way for a successful future. This understanding arose through the arguments thrown around in the public sphere.
The constantly shifting reinterpretation of revered American documents continues into the present. For instance, what rights enable “the pursuit of Happiness”? Or, conversely, what actions prevent “the pursuit of Happiness”? Another question arises when one’s “pursuit of Happiness” infringes on another person’s quest for fulfillment. It remains a necessary task to establish the important values to uphold as American citizens to unite as the entire American nation with common shared ideals. Values give direction and guidance to the shaping of policies – both domestic and foreign. Questions are most easily answered when information is presented clearly and precisely. Rhetoric attempts to define the world in order to sort out various problems. Rhetoric constantly seeks to explain nature and can be used to find solutions to all sorts of quandaries.
A second dilemma faced by the persons living during the time of Reconstruction was determining how best to make amends for injurious deeds. Rhetoric was an essential tool in shaping the argument for giving assistance to blacks. Although the black people had at least been delivered from bondage, a majority was flung into society still uneducated. The “forty acres and a mule” was, in a sense, part of the “American Dream”. The land symbolized their ability to work and gain profit for themselves, but the land with which they were presented was taken from white Southerners. While it was clear that the displaced blacks needed a place to go, the redistribution of land was deemed unfair by those whose land was taken. While it was clear that the blacks needed some help getting up on their own legs to support themselves, how to go about assisting them until they were capable of independence from whites remained a mystery. The Robin Hood style land redistribution did not fare well, and the hopes of blacks to remain separate from whites was shattered when property was returned to the whites who had fled, forcing blacks back onto the farms – working, again, for their ex-masters, but with a minimum wage. It seemed as though the institution of slavery had slightly changed and continue to shackle thousands of blacks to an unjust system. Rhetoric was required to illustrate the necessity of lessening the huge disparity between black and white citizens.
The question of assisting minorities, those who have been wronged, remains a heated issue today in the form of “affirmative action”. While affirmative action gives access to people who grew up with difficult conditions, attempting to correct for societal disadvantages, those who grew up with privilege see their seats at universities and job offers being snatched away from them. There is an ongoing debate about how to right injustices without providing a constant crutch. How much assistance is sufficient to rectify past crimes and current prejudice? The attempt to ensure fairness and equality for all entails multiple complexities, stemming both from present issues and historical origins. To sort out possible procedures, the goals and consequences of each such action must be firmly established with rhetoric so that an educated decision can be made.
Rhetoric establishes a situation, marking the conditions of a certain location and point in time. Although many individuals will cling to opposing views and will therefore contribute to public discourse with opposing rhetoric, rhetoric is always used to sway the opinions of others and rally people towards a certain cause or solution. The power of definition involved in rhetoric plays an integral role in debates, seeking to illuminate the true nature of each situation. Rhetoric conveys perceptions of some and alters the perceptions of others. While rhetoric can be used to muddle and confuse, it can also be used to clarify, and that is when it is most useful – generating solutions to overcome problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)