Susan B. Anthony, a women 's rights activist, In her post arrest speech,(1873), proves that the government has no rights that keep women from theirs. She accomplishes this by first citing evidence in the constitution stating that all the people of America are free citizens, she continues with a legal standpoint of how you can’t disregard a half of the people, followed by a personal opinion on what this sexist nation is brewing in families, and ends with a dictionary definition of what a citizen is and a touch of anti-racism. Anthony inspires a change, with all the evidence and facts she leans you towards her side in order change the nation, she doesn 't want sexism to exist anymore than we want another war. She 's addressing all of the true citizens, not just white men but everyone born in the U.S., women, blacks, the whole 9 yards, and she talks to them, she tries to convince everyone to make it a true free nation.
Granted it is a great speech for her to think of this on the fly, but it has a couple issues. The first and main one being she completely contradicts herself in the fourth and last paragraph. Now I 'm sure most people didn 't catch it, but she clearly states “where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured” in the fourth and “is today null and void,
…show more content…
So I 've already established she 's untrustworthy at best, but then in the third paragraph she turns into a downright lawyer. She names all sorts of junk that I don’t understand in the slightest. Where did she pull this from? How does she know what this stuff is? I don 't know either, she didn 't tell me. Is she counting on us not understanding the words coming out of her mouth? Is she skipping over the fine print? How am I supposed to know if she even remotely knows what she is talking about. Really the only thing she tells me is women are citizens. Other than that the only things I’m told are she is a woman and an illegal voter. She never really backs up anything she says with a reason for me to