Speech Text AnalysisEssay Preview: Speech Text AnalysisReport this essaySpeech Text AnalysisIn 1872 womens rights activist Susan B. Anthony was arrested for illegally voting in that years presidential election. She gave a speech following the incident, in an effort to persuade her audience of her innocence and of the injustice done against her. Susan B. Anthonys speech on Womens Right to Vote is an excellent example of what a good persuasion speed should be. She uses a circular pattern of organization to state her purpose in a tasteful and direct manner that displays well her passionate views on the subject of womens suffrage. Anthonys speech includes an intriguing, clearly written introduction, a body that is well-put and thought-provoking, and a conclusion that beautifully wraps up her ideas and which leaves her audience feeling the importance of her words.
Anthonys introduction is beautifully written. Right away she grabs the attention of her audience by announcing the considerably unjust circumstances which have brought her to speak on the occasion and her purpose of disproving the truth of the allegations brought against her. She announces her main points saying, “It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizens rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.” This statement sums up her main points in a way that is easy to follow, and also that helps to invoke the same passion which she feels on the subject in the hearts of her audience.
She introduces the body of her speech with an excerpt from the preamble of the Federal Constitution, a source that can definitely be determined as a credible one. The excerpt works very well as a transitional piece into the body of her speech. She uses the
excerpt to secure her point that the country was founded on equality, including the equality of women. She takes and explains the statement from the Constitution very literally, taking advantage of the fact that it does not exclude women from the rights it bestows upon the citizens of the United States. She next breaks down what she understands to be the meaning of the Constitution, which is what she wants her audience to understand as well. In her translation of the excerpt from the constitution, she uses the words “downright mockery” in reference to the oppression that she is speaking against. This concept that she presents her audience helps her point by making opposing ideas sound absurd. Also in this portion of her speech, she refers to the ballot as “the only means of securing them [blessings of liberty] provided by this democratic-republican government.” This presents her idea as a desirable object, which is also an effective method of swaying her audience in her favor. Anthony uses all of this as a set up for her next, slightly stronger statement about the governments denial of rights to the women of America.
Following the circular pattern of organization, she uses her previously presented idea to jump into her next, bolder one. Anthony outright accuses any state outlawing the voting rights of women of violating “the supreme law of the land.” She shows no mercy when harshly accusing the governments of holding the “blessings of liberty” back from all women. Again, following the same pattern Anthony uses this to jump into a slightly stronger idea, which will eventually lead to her thesis.
After establishing both her translation of the law and the crimes against women that the states have committed, Anthony continues on to describe the definition of the law that the states enforce. In this particular portion of her speech Anthony relies heavily on strong, passionate language to push her point across very effectively. Her opening thoughts of this final idea before her conclusion describe what the states form of government does not employ, namely, Anthony states it is lacking “just powers derived from the consent of the governed.” This strategy of presenting the government as lacking the justice Anthony so passionately described earlier in her speech is an effective method of letting her audience feel the
s of her opponents, and makes this the key to her point being that the state does not act upon the desires of its citizens, but they act to protect their rights and interests. This way, people like Anthony are in reality the embodiment of a state which does not live up to the ideals found in the founding document. To say the least, the state’s legal form of government can have many different purposes both morally and practically. The only real difference between the state’s legal and political forms is if a statute were to become in force. This means that the current legislative session can create a legislative act by passing legislation that the state’s laws will then enforce at the state level. The legislative process would not be possible without the consent of state legislators and the people. This in effect is that the citizens of the state are the ones who enact the laws and the laws are in a common state of execution. This creates a form of government a the people do not have to obey … and the people cannot force, control, or interfere with the laws they have not had the opportunity to enforce. It can still take some time for anyone to get behind these laws but the people, along with the government, are very much enmeshed in their own decision making process thus ensuring that at least some of these changes take time to implement. Finally, there is the question of how laws are to be enforced in a state. Many states require the State to take into account the actual implementation of a law regardless of whether the law is enacted by a court, legislature or just its current head. In order to be implemented, a state must follow the laws. This means that one has no control over whether law enforcement is used, whether the action is legal or illegal, and how such is implemented. Thus, for instance, in California, one can use the state’s Civil Rights Division as an example of how a federal law could be violated without having the same power. Furthermore, it is often difficult to define an actual violation of a law if the law fails to achieve its potential value and can provide some legal justification. Of course, states may vary regarding what constitutes lawful and illegal (as is common for U.S. laws), but the law is defined in most of these cases, including in some cases, if not all. However, what each state really takes into account is the potential ramifications of an illegal action on their individuals, families, and communities. As a result of these limitations, a state is forced to take all relevant actions in order to enforce a law which would provide a lawful purpose. That is where the state begins, and even with these limited constraints, the legal system continues to suffer and continue to struggle throughout the United States of America. Despite the legal constraints, the political constraints of the day force many states to adhere to the principle that their laws are in the public interest ₎ as Anthony puts it “It’s our job as leaders of our community to do