Rhetorical Devices in Reconstruction

In the final sentence of his essay, Frederick Douglass reiterates his two primary political desires: to encourage the primacy of the federal government over disparate state governments and to enfranchise all American citizens, African-American or white, Northern or Southern. Douglass’s method of crafting a conclusion which seamlessly combines and highlights his two main points serves as an example of effective rhetoric.

The policy that Frederick Douglass refers to here is the Emancipation Proclamation, issued in 1863 by Abraham Lincoln. Douglass’s point is that just as the Emancipation Proclamation was met first with resistance and later with acceptance, so will the controversial cause of African American suffrage eventually be viewed as a clear and necessary advancement.

Douglass suggests here that what is best for the country is what is best for African Americans, and vice versa. His point is that African Americans represent neither a nuisance nor a specialized group in discussions of Reconstruction. Rather, all Americans are genuinely seeking the same goals and the process of Reconstruction ought to be approached from such an angle.

In this metaphor, Douglass reveals his broader vision for the United States in the wake of the Civil War. The Great Wall of China stretches along the western Chinese border and was built and maintained over millennia to keep Mongolian tribes out. Douglass views a similar, though metaphorical, wall dividing the North and South of the United States, with the South—in the mode of medieval China—resisting the North’s laws and values. Thus, along with Reconstruction, Douglass is calling for “the light of law and liberty” to flow into the South. Ultimately, Douglass is calling for national unity.

Douglass recommends a fate for the new state governments of the South: “begin with a clean slate, and make clean work of it.” As President Johnson instated of a new set of Southern governors and legislative bodies, Congress watched in bafflement and fury. Douglass’s suggestion to Congress is to wipe the slate clean of Johnson’s questionable choices, and start over in the reinstitution of the Southern state governments.

The phrase “Once in grace, always in grace” refers to the Christian notion of eternal security, which originated in the writings of St. Augustine in the 5th century. Eternal security suggests that those who are faithful to God will always remain so, despite any sinful acts along the way. Frederick Douglass offers this Augustinian formula as context for the status of the Southern states, who have sinned in their rebellion. Douglass nods to the ongoing debates over whether the South may redeem itself, though he does not throw his own voice in.

Here Douglass appeals to Congress to push for responsible Reconstruction at a faster rate. Douglass takes a no-excuses approach, stating that Congress has had enough time to enact the proper changes. Douglass’s idea of enough time is one year, for this essay was published one year after the end of the war. Ultimately, it would take five years for Congress to pass the entire body of civil rights legislation Douglass calls for.

Diction choices such as “anarchical,” “frightful murders,” and “wholesale massacres” serve as a pathos appeal, or an appeal to the emotions of his audience. Douglass uses this language to bring home the dangers present in the “late rebellious States” to his readers and emphasize the need for consistent federal policies to protect the people from such violence.

Douglass employs a rhetorical strategy in this passage to make an appeal to his audience. By claiming that people from all walks of life have expressed favor for a radical policy, Douglass not only illustrates that his argument has broad support but also connects with the public, showing that their concerns are his concerns.

The upas, Antiaris toxicaria, is a tree known for the deadly poisons it produces. Douglass uses the upas as a metaphor for the systemic problems at the heart of the United States, namely slavery and inequality. Just as one must uproot and destroy the upas in its entirety, so must the United States eradicate the remaining sources of inequality.

The word “bond” literally refers to a restraint, or something which binds. So, a “bondman” refers to someone kept in bondage, such as a serf or a slave, but it also has historically referred to peasants or those in service to a superior. Douglass contrasts the bondman with the tyrant to appeal to a broad audience by claiming that regardless of status, rebellion can happen when reason fails.

Here Douglass discusses how social and political problems build up below the level of public awareness. Such a trend is particularly true in a time of prosperity and bustling busyness, as was the case in the United States—particularly the North—during the mid-19th century. The problem Douglass targets is that of class inequality, a deep disease of which Southern rebellion was a mere symptom. Only a clear crisis can alert the public to structural ills. Douglass illustrates this phenomenon with the metaphor of the broken bilge pump that goes unnoticed until a storm strikes and its disrepair becomes lamentably clear.

Douglass’s use of an accessible metaphor allows him to appeal to a wider audience. Here, the “arm of the Federal government” refers to the influence it has in enforcing laws. On a connotative level, “arm” calls to mind “arms,” which also suggests that Douglass includes the military power of the Federal government in this claim. This brings up a practical perspective: enforcing the laws through Federal troops is costly, expensive, and cannot reach the rights of all individuals.

Douglass constructed the preceding part of this paragraph in a set of conditional “whether” clauses. This allows him to ask rhetorical questions without actually asking them, allowing his audience to understand them as issues needing resolution. This serves as an appeal to his audience by allowing them to interpret his conditions and sympathize with his point. With this line, he claims that despite the actions of Congress in 1865 and the majority of 1866, the central, lasting answers to how to approach Reconstruction need to be addressed.

Douglass claims that “statesmanship” is needed; that is, he believes that the work of Reconstruction requires a skillful, diplomatic approach. Since he makes this claim, he suggests that thus far Reconstruction has not been handled appropriately by those in authority. This claim sets the foundation for his argument by providing the necessary context, identifying the main problem, and offering a proposal for action.