Rewrite this essay to use only college level words. 

In 1861, as the United States teetered on the brink of the Civil War, with internal debates raging about the role of African Americans in the military, Wendell Phillips, a prominent white abolitionist, stepped forward to deliver homage to an emblematic figure: Haitian general Toussaint Louverture. Within his speech, Phillips employs an arsenal of rhetorical devices to praise Louverture’s triumphs and to move his audience. His speech weaves a compelling case, placing Louverture on a pedestal with, and even above, the most revered military figures of White history, such as Washington and Napoleon. Through metaphoric language, historical analogies, and visual imagery, Phillips not only praises Louverture’s unparalleled military acumen but also champions the broader cause of African Americans’ right to military service.

Phillips masterfully opens up his speech with an immediate elevation of Toussaint by juxtaposing him with two notable historical figures of military leadership: Napoleon and Washington. He articulates his comparisons, suggesting that while the legacies of these figures are drawn from their citizen’s reverence or the affection of the American populace, the narrative of Louverture must be painstakingly harvested from the begrudging testimonials of his adversaries. This opening sets a riveting tone, “I am to glean it from the reluctant testimony of Britons, Frenchmen, Spaniards,—men who despised him as a negro and a slave, and hated him because he had beaten them in many a battle. All the materials for his biography are from the lips of his enemies. . . .” By positioning Toussaint’s legacy in such a light, Phillips primes his audience’s curiosity and awe, effectively aligning the Haitian general’s stature to—if not higher than—that of the notable historical figures.

Deepening the ties to prominent historical figures, Phillips continues to portray Toussaint as a commander whose military and moral superiority exceeds that of esteemed leaders. He explicitly contrasts Louverture with other notable historical figures, stating, “I would call him Cromwell, but Cromwell was only a soldier…I would call him Washington, but the great Virginian held slaves.” Here, Phillips’s rhetoric shapes Toussaint not only as a warrior of remarkable prowess but also as an extraordinary man.

Phillips further enhances his praise of Louverture through rich metaphors and visual depictions. He crafts an image of Toussaint as a force of nature, a smith of thunder who met and vanquished the soldiers of European nations, bringing them to their knees or driving them in retreat. “[He] forged a thunderbolt and hurled it at what? At the proudest blood in Europe…and sent him home conquered”, Phillips proclaims, creating an almost mythic picture of Toussaint’s feats—a narrative that not only elevates the subject but is designed to resonate with his audience, stirring them with the magnificence of his accomplishments.

Phillips skillfully employs metaphoric language, historical analogies, and visual imagery to not only articulate the grandeur of Toussaint Louverture’s legacy but also to advocate for a reevaluation of the perception and contributions of African Americans. His weaving of evidence and rhetorical strategies illuminates both the individual magnificence of Louverture and the broader implications of his speech, challenging the audience to confront their biases and recognize the legitimacy of African American participation in the Civil War.