From the late 1860s through the mid-1870s, woman suffrage activists developed an ingenious legal argument, claiming that the U.S. Constitution already enfranchised women citizens. The argument, first articulated by St. Louis activists Virginia and Francis Minor, precipitated rhetorical performances by movement activists on public platforms and in polling places, and the Minors pursued their line of reasoning to the Supreme Court. The Minors' arguments enacted a hermeneutic practice that venerated foundational texts while at the same time subverting their conventional meanings. The rhetorical figure of the gender-neutral, race-neutral citizen provided a basis for imagining a new political subjectivity for women. In the infamous "Minor v. Happersett" decision of 1875, however, the Court formally dissociated citizenship from voting rights. This analysis of the Minors' rhetoric illustrates the capacity of argument that "failed" in law to invigorate cultural movements, assisting in the production of new ways of imagining political selves and performing political identities. (Contains 92 notes.)