Karlyn Kohrs Campbell (essay date November 1986)
SOURCE: Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. “Style and Content in the Rhetoric of Early Afro-American Feminists.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (November 1986): 434-45.
[In the following excerpt from a rhetorical analysis of the speeches of Sojourner Truth, Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell, Campbell points out that Wells-Barnett's style shares many aspects of similar speeches by other reformers but that she disdained traditional “feminine” modes of rhetoric.]
Afro-American women, in addition to the special problems arising out of slavery, historically faced the same problems as all other women. Married, they were dead civilly; unmarried, they were dependents with few possibilities for self support; regardless of marital and socio-economic status, they were oppressed by the cult of true womanhood, which declared that true women were pure, pious, domestic, and submissive.1 As a result, even free Afro-Americans in the North prior to the Civil War confronted the same proscriptions against speaking in public as their middle-class white counterparts, and when they spoke, they were censured.2
It is not surprising, then, that Afro-American women's rhetoric from the 1830s to 1925, the period usually accepted as that of the earlier United States feminist movement, should present problems for the rhetorical critic. Sometimes these Afro-American women rhetors can be viewed as part of the tradition of early women's rhetoric, sometimes they differ from that tradition in style, sometimes in content.3 I shall argue that a simultaneous analysis and synthesis is thus necessary in order to understand these similarities and differences, and I shall illustrate convergences and divergences through speeches made by Sojourner Truth, by Ida B. Wells, and by Mary Church Terrell. …
IDA B. WELLS
Many Afro-American women were involved in efforts for woman suffrage, because they saw the vote as a means to fight for their own cause, particularly against segregationist legislation that denied Afro-Americans continued participation in or entry into American life. Ida B. Wells and Mary Church Terrell were part of this group. Wells, for example, founded the first Afro-American woman suffrage club, and Church Terrell spoke at National American Woman Suffrage Association Conventions and at the International Council of Women in Berlin between 1898 and 1905.4 However, their primary concerns were the problems of Afro-Americans, especially the practice of lynching. The conjunction between the concerns of Afro-American and white women is clearest in their common cause on the issue of lynching.
Ida B. Wells's speech, “Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases,” delivered in 1892, stands as a counterpoint to two more frequently studied rhetorical events.5 On December 22, 1886, Henry Grady, a prominent white southern journalist delivered a speech on “The New South” to the New England Society of New York City at its annual banquet.6 Wells referred to Grady's speech and made explicit the fact that her speech was intended to be a dramatic refutation of the picture of the South that Grady had painted. Three years after Wells began her anti-lynching campaign, Booker T. Washington was invited to address the opening of the Cotton States' Exposition at Atlanta, Georgia, on September 18, 1895.7 Washington addressed a mixed audience of white and Afro-Americans and articulated the view that southerners of both races could cooperate in all things economic while remaining socially separated. His gradualist views were in contrast to those of W. E. B. Du Bois, who demanded full legal equality and economic opportunity. Wells's speech makes clear that she sided with Du Bois and, like him, she was one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. In fact, Wells's calls for economic boycotts and armed self-defense would have been congenial to Black Power advocates of the 1960s.
Wells's speech is important as a historical document and as the initiating event in what became a social movement; as a rhetorical work, it is noteworthy in three respects. First, as in her writings, she used evidence and argument in highly sophisticated ways, ways that prevented members of the audience from dismissing her claims as biased or untrue. Second, the speech was an insightful and sophisticated analysis of the interrelationship of sex, race, and class. Third, in contrast to the rhetorical acts of other women, this speech contained no stylistic markers indicating attempts by a woman speaker to appear “womanly” in what is perceived as a male role—that of rhetor.
Wells's use of evidence and argument had to overcome severe obstacles. She had to refute the cultural history of sexism that made the cry of rape (of a white woman) adequate justification for violence against Afro-Americans.8 She had to show that lynchings were frequent and that rape was not even alleged in a majority of cases. She had to draw this evidence from unimpeachable sources, and she had to use the statements of whites to reveal the real motives behind these acts.
The evidence Wells presented was part of a carefully constructed case. Initially, she argued: “White men lynch the offending Afro-American, not because he is a despoiler of virtue, but because he succumbs to the smiles of white women.” Some seventeen relatively detailed examples were presented in support of this claim. The detailed examples allowed her audience to weigh the evidence and consider its plausibility, and the fact that much of it came from the public press, in some cases from white southern newspapers, added to the credibility of her accounts. She left her audience in no doubt that real human beings were caught in lethal dilemmas again and again throughout the South, and emotional response was prompted by the argument of these details rather than by exhortation.
Her argument revealed the terrible double standard: “[I]t is not the crime but the class,” she said, referring to the fact that when the victims were Afro-American women, no protection was afforded, no avenging was needed. Once again, her proof was a series of six dramatic examples intended to show that there was no concern to protect Afro-American women or female children or to punish those who assaulted them. Hence, if the reason for lynching was not the protection of white womanhood, some other motive was at work. Wells argued that lynching was done to control Afro-Americans—lynching was political, with the allegation of rape used as justification. She first pointed to the other forms of control that were then widespread throughout the South, the “Jim Crow” laws that had been passed since the 1875 Civil Rights Act had been declared unconstitutional in 1883.9 Wells noted that, despite these other forms of control, lynching had increased. Here she used evidence gathered by a northern white newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, to document with statistics the extent of the problem and the fact that, in only one-third of the cases, was rape even alleged.
She then cited two editorials from white newspapers in Memphis. The first quotation embodied the mythology of the bestial Afro-American rapist, despite the fact that no incidents supporting that mythology had occurred in the city of Memphis, the source of the editorial. The second editorial made explicit the intent to coerce submission through violence. It was a classic statement of the view that “uppity Negroes” should be punished violently.
Wells went on to describe the 1892 lynching in Memphis about which she had written and for which her life had been threatened. This particular lynching, occasioned by economic competition, became a paradigmatic case of lynching throughout the South. Wells concluded by stating that all who disapproved of lynching and remained silent became accessories, because lynch mobs would not persist if their members knew that the forces of law and order would be used against them. Throughout this argument there was a strong appeal to fundamental values of fairness, to the right to trial by jury, and to the right to full and careful investigation of crimes, appeals that added weight to her accusation that silent bystanders were guilty of complicity.
Wells concluded that, given the legal protection or redress, Afro-Americans had to turn to self-help. They had to learn the facts of such cases for themselves in order to judge what the truth was. Such cases called for investigative reporting such as her own. They had to use economic boycotts to demand appropriate legal action against lynchers, and they needed to arm themselves to act in self-defense to prevent mob violence. Here, too, examples were used, including that of Memphis where a boycott in response to the 1892 lynching had had some effect, although not enough to force action against the lynchers, all of whose names were known. Two examples where lynchings were prevented by armed self-defense were noted but not detailed. Wells ended by proposing that these three solutions in concert could solve the problem, that is, stamp out lynch law.
Wells made a carefully constructed case that rested on kinds of evidence that made the problem vivid, demonstrated its scope, supported the speaker's analysis of its causes, and suggested the futility of alternative solutions. Wells understood the kind of problem she faced. Given the general acceptance of the mythology that lynching was caused by sexual assaults on white women, Wells knew that her audience would find it hard to believe her. The evidence was carefully selected to prevent such a response. Hearers and readers encountered case after case that challenged that casual assumption. They learned the statistical facts from a white northern newspaper. They heard the mythology and the political coercion out of the mouths of the editors of newspapers in the very town from which Wells had been driven. Wells was calling into question her audience's prior beliefs and opening their minds to future evidence.
The soundness, indeed the power of Wells's analysis of the relationship of sex, race, and class in the phenomenon of lynching, is attested to by the fact that her conclusions recurred in the resolutions, declarations, and speeches of southern white women. What follows is not a story of interracial cooperation, but of the convergence of the concerns of Afro-American and white women.
In response to the lynching of an Afro-American farm laborer named George Hughes, a Texas suffragist named Jessie Daniel Ames founded the Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching (ASWPL) in 1930.10 The goals of this all-white group were to find practical ways to prevent lynchings, to convince southern white women that lynching posed a threat to their own...
(The entire section is 4504 words.)