In 1905, Florence Kelley, a social and political activist, delivered her “Speech on Child Labor” in Philadelphia to the National American Woman Suffrage Association, with the purpose of advocating for an end to child labor, by giving women the right to suffrage which they deserve and must have in order to put an end to such unjust laws. She emphasizes the callousness of this system and urges the audience to act against it, using an alluring and disproving tone while describing it. She shifts from an objective standpoint in the beginning, while mentioning data and comparing the child labor laws of various states, to a more direct, powerful, and didactic tone, while addressing the issue and supporting her argument. Her intended audience is the citizens of America, who can vote to directly fight this brutal system of child labor and grant women enfranchisement. Florence Kelley makes use of valuable data and comparisons to support her argument, emotional appeals to the audience, a deferred thesis, and a call for action stressing the importance of a woman’s right to vote and its role in ending child labor.
Florence Kelley uses valuable data and compares states with child labor laws–or rather a lack of them. The first paragraph opens with factual evidence regarding child labor in America, saying that there are two million children who are not yet sixteen working in Georgia’s cotton mills and Pennsylvania’s coal-breakers. It concludes with evidence regarding the right to vote and differences between men and women in the workforce. Kelley goes on to compare the child labor laws in various countries, namely North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and New Jersey, which allows the reader to connect her abstract argument with real-world examples, thus strengthening her claims. In North and South Carolina and Georgia there are no laws that limit the number of hours child laborers may work at night. The state of Alabama has a handful of restrictions that do not permit children to work for more than eight hours a night. New Jersey, however, has no such laws. The state repealed a law that had signified an important step towards ending child labor; children, and women, can now continue working past six at night and noon on Fridays. “Now, therefore, in New Jersey, boys and girls, after their fourteenth birthday, enjoy the pitiful privilege of working all night long.” (para. 3) By using alliteration and an oxymoron in one phrase–“pitiful privilege”–the author strengthens her argument furthermore. The repetition of the letter “p” captures the reader’s attention, and the comparison of “privilege” and “pity,” two contradictory words, creates dramatic irony in the speech. She sees children working long hours at night as pitiful, but uses the word “privilege” because judging by the lack of restriction laws, states, employers, and even the families that need additional sources of income see child labor as beneficial. The author uses evidence and juxtaposition to build her argument, while also emotionally reaching out to the audience.
Florence Kelley makes numerous appeals to emotion intended for the audience during her speech. The author identifies herself as part of the audience, making her opinions more objective and representative of the population. “Tonight while we sleep, several thousand little girls will be working in textile mills, all the night through, in the deafening noise of the spindles and the looms spinning and weaving cotton and owol, silks and ribbons for us to buy” (para. 2). Kelley compares their conditions to our’s, by relating the hours of intensive work they put in to produce the desired results, which merely serve the purpose of being sold to consumers, some of whom are part of the audience. By doing so, she makes the audience truly understand the connection and how child labor directly relates to us, making it a more personal issue. The author connects to the reader on an emotional basis, but also proves to be more persuasive by introducing her thesis later in her speech.
By using a deferred thesis, Florence Kelley additionally builds her argument effectively. Kelley officially introduces her argument in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. In the beginning, she uses factual evidence and pathos to connect to her audience. By introducing her argument later in her speech, she gives the reader an opportunity to understand the context of the topic, as well as form his/her own opinions regarding the topic before the author states her’s, making the speech more objective. The author uses a rhetorical question to first introduce her argument; this makes her opinion seem as the only correct answer to the issue. S “If the mothers and the teachers in Georgia could vote, would the Georgia legislature have refused at every session for the last three years to stop the work in mills of children under twelve years of age?” (para. 5). he also uses powerful diction in her thesis to strengthen her argument and make any other solution to the issue of child labor seem comparatively inefficient.“Until the mothers in the great industrial states are enfranchised, we shall none of us be able to free our consciences from participation in this great evil” (para. 6). The only way to end cruel systems, such as child labor, is to enfranchise women, who would devote themselves and their ballots to terminating such laws. Kelley’s deferred thesis changes the tone of her speech from objective to subjective and connects to her audience with the use of rhetorical questions, as does the call for action in following paragraphs.
Kelley utilizes a call for action in her speech, emphasizing the importance of granting women the right of suffrage. Kelley notes that acting in favor of enfranchisement, which is a step towards the abolition of unjust systems such as child labor, should be unanimously agreed upon. This strengthens the probability of the audience being persuaded by her argument because it poses her solution as what the majority should concur with. “No one in this room tonight can feel free from such participation” (para. 6). The author makes use of absolute phrases, including “no one” and “no labor organization,” which serves the purpose of strengthening the audience’s likelihood of agreeing. “No labor organization in this country ever fails to respond to an appeal for help in the freeing freeing of the children” (para. 7). The author goes on to first use herself as an example, by explaining what she will do as an advocate of women’s suffrage and abolition of child labor. She later suggests how the audience may contribute. “We can enlist the workingmen on behalf of our enfranchisement just in proportion as we strive with them to free the children” (para. 7). The author’s call for action is one of many rhetorical strategies the author employs to build and strengthen her argument.
“Speech on Child Labor,” a speech given by Florence Kelley in 1905, argues the importance of enfranchisement for women and the potential role it could, and eventually would, play in eliminating the brutal child labor laws in a countless number of states, by using factual evidence (some in the form of comparisons), pathos, a deferred thesis, and a call for action.