Question

Can anyone tell me what the gist of what this part of the speech means?

Answer 1

Friends and fellow citizens: I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus doing, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any State to deny.

Our democratic-republican government is based on the idea of the natural right of every individual member thereof to a voice and a vote in making and executing the laws. We assert the province of governement to be to secure the people in the enjoyment of their inalienable right. Weh throw to the winds the old dogma that government can give rights. No one denies that before governments were oganized each individual possessed the right to protect his own life, liberty and property. When 100 to 1,000,000 people enter into a free governemnt, they do not barter away their natural rights; they simply pledge themselves to protect each other in the enjoyment of them through prescribed judicial and legislative tribunals. They agree to abandon the methods of brute force in the adjustment of their differences and adopt those of civilization . . .The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of the several States and the organic laws of the Territories, all a
like propose to protect the people in the exercise of their God-given rights. Not one of them pretends to bestow rights.

Answer 2

The gist is basically in the last line.

What about it do you get? It is easier to help if I know what you think it means. Then, if you need help, it is just an adjustment. And, you might actually get the point and just need that confirmed.

Answer 3

@e.mccormick We're supposed to be re-writing this whole section so that it fits to the modern day. I understand that its about human rights. I just keep having difficulties with it.

Answer 4

OK, what do you have? I can easily tell if it covers the same ground.

Answer 5

@e.mccormick
Friends and fellow citzens: Today I am here because I feel it is right to let everyone have the right to vote. As a union, we all need to work together to decide for our government and what is best for us. In order to be able to achieve that, we need to all be a part of it. Each and every one of us has every right to do what we want, and we deserve those rights.

We all as humans are born to be free and have rights. Whether we are men or women or white or black. When people come to be part of us, they come for the rights of a United States citzen. Without the people we would be lost, but if we can’t decide then who can. We created the the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the constitutions of the several States and the organic laws of the Territories to give us those rights.

Answer 6

...right to... ...the right... Avoid repetition. So use "proper" for the first one, or imperative. Also, you use it later as rights as in human rights issues. You end up needing to repeat right there, so avoiding any other uses keeps it clear what rights you mean and makes it more readable.

Other than that, it looks linguistically good. I am going to go back over the original for content.

Answer 7

You have the overage sentiment: a drive forward in the rights of people as it applies to voting but couched as an assertion of existing rights.

If you need to keep the exact content, or very similar but in a modern context, you could open with something about not being allowed to vote. There have been a few cases of voter intimidation lately too. And that "my work this evening" part could be called, "my goal" in modern times. Don't know how close to the original you need to be, but those type things would push it closer.

One other thing is that the original states these are rights handed down by God, not just by being a US Citizen. You could use "inalienable rights" (in quotes because that is a historic term) and say they are the natural rights of all human beings. For reasoning: list us all as equals. No human better than another. This is actually covered when you say we are all born free, but you sort of change it when you go to the US citizen thing. Perhaps just say that as a US Citizen there are documents affirming the natural rights granted to all humans.

As I said, you are very close to the meaning and intent of the original. You did not talk about the work being done or God given rights, but you do say they are granted to all humans. That is a very good way of putting it and I think a less God focused approach would be more modern.

Answer 8

Thank you for all your help :)