Paul Cuffe Story

Paul Cuffe by Arthur Diamond is a biography on Paul Cuffe's life. Paul Cuffe was a wealthy African-American that strived for equal rights for black people. He built the first nonsegregated schoolhouse in 1797 mainly for his own children and close friends of the family. Paul Cuffe's dad was a slave brought straight from Africa and his mother was a Native American. Both of his parents worked hard for their money but never had the ability to voice their opinion, via vote. Before Paul was born his dad became a free slave, so Paul was free as well. Paul learned to read and write by himself, therefore Paul had the ability to make money. Paul became invested in a merchant ship and soon became very wealthy. With his wealth and influence Paul fought for the African-American right to vote. After a while of fighting for the right to vote Paul decided he should just move back to Africa where he had equal rights. Once back to Africa he wasn't welcomed well and never achieved a happy life.

Since Paul was an free African American he believed he deserved the right to vote like any other "free" person. Paul's main complaint was that people taxed him for owning land but he couldn't pay taxes as observed on page 28, "We being of African extraction are not allowed the privilege of freemen of the state, having no vote or influence in the election that chose to tax us"(Diamond 28). Paul Cuffe deserved the right to vote because of his wealth and prestige that he had built up, but, nonetheless wasn't allowed because of his race. Race is just a color or a physical feature not what a person's character is about. After reading Paul Cuffe I am enraged that one race thinks it can rule another. It just doesn't have anything to back it up. A person's character should be the only thing looked at when evaluated for the right to vote.

Diamond, Arthur. Paul Cuffe. New York: Chealse House publishers, Print.

The 19th Amendment

The 19th Amendment by Michael Burgan describes the struggle of women in their quest to vote. The fight for equal rights for women started in 1848 at the Seneca Falls convention and came to a close in 1920 when Tennessee ratified the 19th amendment. The right for women to vote was promoted by publicizing the cause in the form of holding rallies and parades. The suffragist main point was "Those who obey the laws should help to choose those who make the laws"(Burgan 5). But the main anti-suffragist point was in the Biblical terms (when Paul talked about how women should submit to men) and the rule of precedence (the fact that women have never had the right to vote before so why change it). But still, even after all that the women were up against they prevailed and achieved the right to vote.

The right to vote in my opinion should not be determined by sex. Now, when I say that I do not mean every woman/man should vote. I firmly believe that if you are educated on the topic, extremely passionate about the topic, and old enough you should be allowed to vote. I am probably going to make the initial suffragists mad, but, probably 70% of the people participating in the parades and rallies were there because their friends made them come to show false support. The people in the rallies and parades had one of the necessary three qualities in order to vote (in my criteria). They have the age, but very few had the passion, and very few had the knowledge of the topic. Hmm... Sounds like America today, doesn't it? People today have the age requirement but lack the vigor and knowledge on the topic. So the American people then decide to settle on a few other topics such as race, age, and the desire for change. This is how the election turned out, didn't it? Obama won the black people vote with his half blackness, Obama won the age vote because he is young, and Obama won the desire for change vote because his party was going against the percedent party that refused to change. McCain won the old white and die-hard Republican vote which isn't enough to win an election. So if we, Americans, could learn from the other 30% of the women participating in the rallies and parades with vigor, knowledge, and the appropriate age requirements then America will be for the people by the people once again.

Burgan, Michael. The 19th Amendment. Minnesota: Compass, Print.

Critical Review One - March on Selma

The March on Selma is widely known as a peaceful march to Montgomery, Alabama from Selma, Alabama. The March was a way for African-American people to explain their distaste towards their inability to vote. The African-Americans participated in a peaceful march, not a violent uprising. But, nonetheless, were still attacked by state troopers on the opposite side of Edmund Pettis Bridge. Television "brought the scenes of the bleeding, broken, and unconscious"(Miller 45) to viewers lounging on their couches. This hit home to Americans causing them to act.

The March is an example of a underprivileged group of people dying for the chance to vote. Did everyone in the March act for the right to vote or was it just a social gathering? I cannot answer that question, but I am sure its for both reasons. Black people have been suppressed for so long that eventually the blister of suppression had to pop. This 'pop' was the Selma March. So, when one group is left out and suppressed, that group grows passionate towards a cause; and when one is passionate for a cause then it is when they should be allowed to vote.


"Man ought to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to man ought to be such that vengeance must not be feared" Niccolo Machiavelli

Either Voting Rights to all or Voting Rights to none. There is no in between.

Book I read. The Bridge at Selma by Marilyn Miller.

Miller, Marlyin. The Bridge at Selma. New York, NY: Penguin, Print.