Analysis Of Anna Howard Shaw's The Fundamental Principle Of A Republic

On the stagnant day of June 21st, 1915, dozens of women congregated into the towering City Opera House in the town of Ogdensburg, New York, and awaited to bear witness to a speech that would soon revolutionize the battle for the The Women’s Suffrage Movement. Complimenting the sweltering heat, Reverend Doctor Anna Howard Shaw’s fiery passion is ignited in her speech The Fundamental Principle of a Republic. Shaw implements several points to support her argument for equal voting rights, each supported by various literary devices.
Starting to frame her argument, Shaw initially opens with powerful ethos, “When I came into your hall tonight, I thought of the last time I was in your city. Twenty- one years ago I came here with Susan B. Anthony, and we came

for exactly the same purpose as that for which we are here tonight” (Shaw). Not only does referring to another widely renowned suffragette display her experience with the cause, it consequently addresses that the problem at hand has still yet to be solved. Twenty-one years is but a second on the historical clock of attempting to secure equal rights for women, yet it amplifies the agonizing fact that the goal had not been achieved. Furthering her point, Shaw then includes antithesis as to why she continues to fight,“If woman's suffrage is wrong, it is a great wrong; if it is right, it is a profound and fundamental principle, and we all know, if we know what a Republic is, that it is the fundamental principle upon which a Republic must rise.” She argues that if one’s government identifies itself as a republic, a “form of government in which the laws are enacted by representatives elected by the people”, why does it renounce an opportunity at which is can apply itself to the most important principle? By pointing out the flawed logic that is only adhering to some of the definition of a republic, and rejecting others (the lack of voting equality), the government subjects itself to its own hypocrisy.
Referring to when she attended an anti-suffragette meeting in Brooklyn, an anti-suffragette point arises in the discussion.

Confronted with the belief that, if women were given the right to vote, charities would shrink in size, Dr. Shaw counters with a metaphor.“ If we put in the word "opportunity" instead, that is what republics stand for. Our doctrine is not to extend the length of our bread lines or the size of our soup kitchens, what we need is for men to have the opportunity to buy their own bread and eat their own soup”. In this metaphor, the comparison to buying bread and eating soup is akin to being able to vote and enjoy the benefits of voting, comparatively voting for a candidate that shares one’s values. Yet, without the opportunity to reap such benefits, a women would only ever be stuck in a soup line of someone else’s choices, forever unable to make her own to see the change she wants.
Towards the end of the speech, the anti suffragettes who are attacking Shaw’s argument make one last stand as one man out in the crowd screams out, “Well what does a woman know of war anyway?” Immediately, her reaction leads into a pathos-woven anecdote describing the horrors thousands of mothers would soon

face:
“She gave her life for him, and in an hour his country calls him out and in an hour he lies dead; that wonderful, wonderful thing lies dead; and sitting by his side, that mother looking into the dark years to come knows that when her son died her life’s hope died with him, and in the face of that wretched motherhood, what man dare ask what a woman knows of war.”
The emphasization of gut-wrenching emotion allows the audience members to experience the almost tangible sorrow of the grieving mother. For every man that went overseas and became another tally in the casualty count, the heavy cross of grief was to be presented to the women. Shaw highlighted the long neglected fact that men are not the only ones who suffer in war. She opened the eyes of many people that women have and will continue to suffer for their country, even if only indirectly. But even in their indirect suffering it is still suffering, and it deserves to not be dismissed.
Through Shaw’s battles with the people she touched the hearts and brightened the minds of many. By exposing the hypocritical nature of a government’s title of “Republic”, supplying a simple metaphor describing the wonders of an opportunity, and illustrating the agonizing reality of just how well women know the impact of war, Shaw’s diction provided a fresh gulp of inspiration during the battle of suffrage. Unfortunately, she would not live to see her life’s work sprout new hope and become reality. Just two years after her death, the long fought battle would finally be won and the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, constitutionally protecting women’s equal voting rights, would be passed in 1920. A single individual’s perspiration and persistence in a stuffy old opera house set the opening act in the now ever revolutionizing play of achieving equality.