“… and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” Here Abigail tells John to work to make things more equal between men and women, providing them with more rights than their ancestors have. She contends that the women will rebel if lawmakers continue to create and uphold laws that deny women rights, and therefore strip them of their voice and representation. 

She undertakes “the ardous task of endeavouring to combat that vulgar, that almost universal errour [of] . . . The superiority of [men, which has] been time out of mind esteemed a truth incontrovertible”. 

She asks “Are we deficient in reason? we can only reason from what we know, and if opportunity of acquiring knowledge hath been denied us, the inferiority of our sex cannot fairly be deduced from then . . . May we not trace its source in the difference of education, and continued advantages?” 

She concludes that, given the opportunity and equal access to expand their education and experience, women can equal men in “intellectual powers [of] . . . imagination, reason, memory and judgment.”    

“we see slavery existing to such an extent, and the slave trade carried on with such shocking cruelty, in a country which, throughout the world is famed for its freedom”.

While talking about affairs of the slave trade: “I trust that our government will not tax the blood and bones of Englishman for any such purpose, while Negroes, free as well as enslaved, can be killed with impunity in the United States“.

As women became more active in the public as they became responsible for educating children and more, Grimke reports that usefulness is now opened to her, and she feels as if she needs to combat the sins that plague their country (oppression). She concludes that her current history was teeming “with women’s wrong, and [was] wet with women’s tears”, so she must, for the sake of her gender as a whole, which suffers below men, encourage her fellow women to rise and fight for human rights, and equality to men.

“The whites have always been an unjust, jealous, unmerciful, avaricious and blood-thirsty set of beings, always seeking after power and authority.”

Walker recounts a preacher whose opinions aligned with the dehumanization black people were treated with, and remarks that the preacher would like those to believe his gospel is “that of peace and not of blood and whips, as this pretended preacher tried to make us believe.” Those who claim to subscribe to the Christian faith seem to be well versed in sin.

Walker tells of how slavery and its evils are not discussed in newspapers, as it is regarded as abhorrent and detrimental, even more so than the actual sins of the country.

“The Americans say, that we are ungrateful-but I ask them for heaven's sake, what should we grateful to them for — for murdering our fathers and mothers?” 

Perhaps the most important part of Walker’s writing comes when he claims America as that of the African Americans: “America is more our country, then it is the whites-we have enriched it with our blood and tears. The greatest riches in America have arisen from our blood and tears”. “Americans have got some fat on our blood and groans”. As slaves, black people created America’s wealth - producing crops and goods that fueled the nation, labor and profit for no pay, often dying, generations kept in servitude, a race kept in oppression. 

Walker believes graduation from this oppression and unity is achievable with god, despite what white people believe.

Walker moves to threats, challenging his powerful white oppressors. He claims those of his color will rise, despite the popular belief that they will be kept a well secured oppression.

Finally, and critically, Walker turns to the Declaration, demanding “Americans” notice their claims that “all men are created equal”  and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are certainly not being granted to those who are being murdered without provocation.

We can notice, throughout Walker’s writing, who he defines as “Americans”.

“Slavery is unjust, as it destroys all the physical and commercial distinctions of labor and property. It is a mere monopoly of men, in all their abilities and services”.

The slave is scrutinizing of the way America biasts liberty, yet utilizes slavery: “If slavery has become so firmly established in this country, as not to be avoided or guarded against, or is such a pleasing object, as to be no longer odious and irreligious, but a source of happiness and prosperity, it’s high time for America to give up all pretensions to liberty and freedom, and acknowledge herself at once, a joint heir with John Bull”.

“Are not Our rites as well secured to us by every law of nature’s God as any man’s in the universe?“

The slave threatens the oppressive system multiple times. They also ask why those in power, in a free nation, wish to raise and educate their children in “such a tyrannical manner”. 

The article concludes with the slave’s wish for unity.

Here a speaker claims that slavery in the South is only possible with the lack of slavery in the North, and the Northern states are responsible for the slavery in the South: “so that while the free states of the American Union consent to what they call the compromise of the constitution of the United States, they are responsible for the existence of slavery in the southern states”. “ The slave has no hopes for that from the northern states, for they are in connexxion with the slave states of America”.

When discussing why the slaves, who outnumber their slaveholders, cannot rise against their masters: “The people of United States are all pledged, bound by their oath, bound by their citizenship in the country, to bring their whole physical power to bear against the slave if such an event should arise”.

The speaker compares the state of the slave to that of a horse, and how if horses were being branded and tortured as slaves are, there would be outrage amongst Christians. “Yet, in the United States, human beings are thus branded”.

The speaker proposes that slavery is an American institution, not limited to only the slave states: “ The general government does after all give support to the institution of slavery as it exists in the slave states. An attempt has been made in this country to establish the conviction that the free states of the union have nothing whatever to do with the maintenance amd perpetuity of slavery in the southern states, and many persons coming from the United States have represented themselves as coming from the free states, and have shirked all responsibility in regard to slavery on this ground. Now, I am here to maintain that slavery is not only a matter belonging to the state south of the line, but is an American institution – a United States institution – a system that derives its support as well from the non-slaveholding states, as they are called, as from the slaveholding states.” He goes on to say that both regions benefit from this institution.

The speaker also attests to the fact that barbarity and extreme abuse towards the slave is necessary for him to exist as a slave, to remain as a slave. 

This source discusses black citizenship and voting rights, asking “To what evidence does the Court refer to show that a colored man may not be a citizen?” and “What have we done to forfeit the inestimable benefits of this charter? Why should tax paying colored men, any more than other tax-payers, be deprived of the right of voting for their representatives?” 

The speaker then addresses the establishment of the American government: “It was said in the Convention, that this government belongs to the Whites. We have already established our present government designed it equally for all. It is for you to decide whether it shall be confined to the European complexion in the future. Why should you exclude us from a fair participation in the benefits of the republic? Have we oppressed the whites?”

The speaker further challenges the possibility of their disenfranchisement due to supposed “idleness”, stating their work for their own livelihood. He also wants an investigation into such a proposal, stating that on the conscience and minds of every Pennsylvanian should be whether there ever was a group less deserving of disenfranchisement.