Text of Douglass's Speech

Delivered on Monday, July 5th, 1852, in Rochester, New York

Mr. President, Friends and Fellow Citizens: He who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning. I trust, however, that mine will not be so considered. Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country school houses, avails me nothing on the present occasion.

The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th [of] July oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way, for it is true that I have often had the privilege to speak in this beautiful Hall, and to address many who now honor me with their presence. But neither their familiar faces, nor the perfect gage I think I have of Corinthian Hall, seems to free me from embarrassment.

The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable — and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say, I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you.

This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young. Seventy-six years, though a good old age for a man, is but a mere speck in the life of a nation. Three score years and ten is the allotted time for individual men; but nations number their years by thousands. According to this fact, you are, even now, only in the beginning of your national career, still lingering in the period of childhood. I repeat, I am glad this is so. There is hope in the thought, and hope is much needed, under the dark clouds which lower above the horizon. The eye of the reformer is met with angry flashes, portending disastrous times; but his heart may well beat lighter at the thought that America is young, and that she is still in the impressible stage of her existence. May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot's heart might be sadder, and the reformer's brow heavier. Its future might be shrouded in gloom, and the hope of its prophets go out in sorrow. There is consolation in the thought that America is young. Great streams are not easily turned from channels, worn deep in the course of ages. They may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty, and inundate the land, refreshing and fertilizing the earth with their mysterious properties. They may also rise in wrath and fury, and bear away, on their angry waves, the accumulated wealth of years of toil and hardship. They, however, gradually flow back to the same old channel, and flow on as serenely as ever. But, while the river may not be turned aside, it may dry up, and leave nothing behind but the withered branch, and the unsightly rock, to howl in the abyss-sweeping wind, the sad tale of departed glory. As with rivers so with nations.

Fellow-citizens, I shall not presume to dwell at length on the associations that cluster about this day. The simple story of it is that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects. The style and title of your "sovereign people" (in which you now glory) was not then born. You were under the British Crown. Your fathers esteemed the English Government as the home government; and England as the fatherland. This home government, you know, although a considerable distance from your home, did, in the exercise of its parental prerogatives, impose upon its colonial children, such restraints, burdens and limitations, as, in its mature judgement, it deemed wise, right and proper.

But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers. Such a declaration of agreement on my part would not be worth much to anybody. It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776. To say now that America was right, and England wrong, is exceedingly easy. Everybody can say it; the dastard, not less than the noble brave, can flippantly discant on the tyranny of England towards the American Colonies. It is fashionable to do so; but there was a time when to pronounce against England, and in favor of the cause of the colonies, tried men's souls. They who did so were accounted in their day, plotters of mischief, agitators and rebels, dangerous men. To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong, and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day. The cause of liberty may be stabbed by the men who glory in the deeds of your fathers. But, to proceed.

Feeling themselves harshly and unjustly treated by the home government, your fathers, like men of honesty, and men of spirit, earnestly sought redress. They petitioned and remonstrated; they did so in a decorous, respectful, and loyal manner. Their conduct was wholly unexceptionable. This, however, did not answer the purpose. They saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back.

As the sheet anchor takes a firmer hold, when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger, as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure. The greatest and best of British statesmen admitted its justice, and the loftiest eloquence of the British Senate came to its support. But, with that blindness which seems to be the unvarying characteristic of tyrants, since Pharaoh and his hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of.

The madness of this course, we believe, is admitted now, even by England; but we fear the lesson is wholly lost on our present rulers.

Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men, and if they did not go mad, they became restive under this treatment. They felt themselves the victims of grievous wrongs, wholly incurable in their colonial capacity. With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here, the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born! It was a startling idea, much more so, than we, at this distance of time, regard it. The timid and the prudent (as has been intimated) of that day, were, of course, shocked and alarmed by it.

Such people lived then, had lived before, and will, probably, ever have a place on this planet; and their course, in respect to any great change, (no matter how great the good to be attained, or the wrong to be redressed by it), may be calculated with as much precision as can be the course of the stars. They hate all changes, but silver, gold and copper change! Of this sort of change they are always strongly in favor.

These people were called tories in the days of your fathers; and the appellation, probably, conveyed the same idea that is meant by a more modern, though a somewhat less euphonious term, which we often find in our papers, applied to some of our old politicians.

Their opposition to the then dangerous thought was earnest and powerful; but, amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it, the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on, and the country with it.

On the 2d of July, 1776, the old Continental Congress, to the dismay of the lovers of ease, and the worshipers of property, clothed that dreadful idea with all the authority of national sanction. They did so in the form of a resolution; and as we seldom hit upon resolutions, drawn up in our day, whose transparency is at all equal to this, it may refresh your minds and help my story if I read it.

"Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right, ought to be free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, dissolved."

Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation's history — the very ring-bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.

Pride and patriotism, not less than gratitude, prompt you to celebrate and to hold it in perpetual remembrance. I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

From the round top of your ship of state, dark and threatening clouds may be seen. Heavy billows, like mountains in the distance, disclose to the leeward huge forms of flinty rocks! That bolt drawn, that chain broken, and all is lost. Cling to this day — cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight.

The coming into being of a nation, in any circumstances, is an interesting event. But, besides general considerations, there were peculiar circumstances which make the advent of this republic an event of special attractiveness.

The whole scene, as I look back to it, was simple, dignified and sublime.

The population of the country, at the time, stood at the insignificant number of three millions. The country was poor in the munitions of war. The population was weak and scattered, and the country a wilderness unsubdued. There were then no means of concert and combination, such as exist now. Neither steam nor lightning had then been reduced to order and discipline. From the Potomac to the Delaware was a journey of many days. Under these, and innumerable other disadvantages, your fathers declared for liberty and independence and triumphed.

Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory.

They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests.

They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was "settled" that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were "final;" not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times.

How circumspect, exact and proportionate were all their movements! How unlike the politicians of an hour! Their statesmanship looked beyond the passing moment, and stretched away in strength into the distant future. They seized upon eternal principles, and set a glorious example in their defence. Mark them!

Fully appreciating the hardship to be encountered, firmly believing in the right of their cause, honorably inviting the scrutiny of an on-looking world, reverently appealing to heaven to attest their sincerity, soundly comprehending the solemn responsibility they were about to assume, wisely measuring the terrible odds against them, your fathers, the fathers of this republic, did, most deliberately, under the inspiration of a glorious patriotism, and with a sublime faith in the great principles of justice and freedom, lay deep the corner-stone of the national superstructure, which has risen and still rises in grandeur around you.

Of this fundamental work, this day is the anniversary. Our eyes are met with demonstrations of joyous enthusiasm. Banners and pennants wave exultingly on the breeze. The din of business, too, is hushed. Even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day. The ear-piercing fife and the stirring drum unite their accents with the ascending peal of a thousand church bells. Prayers are made, hymns are sung, and sermons are preached in honor of this day; while the quick martial tramp of a great and multitudinous nation, echoed back by all the hills, valleys and mountains of a vast continent, bespeak the occasion one of thrilling and universal interests nation's jubilee.

Friends and citizens, I need not enter further into the causes which led to this anniversary. Many of you understand them better than I do. You could instruct me in regard to them. That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper interest than your speaker. The causes which led to the separation of the colonies from the British crown have never lacked for a tongue. They have all been taught in your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits, and thundered from your legislative halls, and are as familiar to you as household words. They form the staple of your national poetry and eloquence.

I remember, also, that, as a people, Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait — perhaps a national weakness. It is a fact, that whatever makes for the wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap! will be found by Americans. I shall not be charged with slandering Americans, if I say I think the American side of any question may be safely left in American hands.

I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to other gentlemen whose claim to have been regularly descended will be less likely to be disputed than mine!

THE PRESENT.

My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now.

          "Trust no future, however pleasant,
              Let the dead past bury its dead;
          Act, act in the living present,
              Heart within, and God overhead."

We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy a child's share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have "Abraham to our father," when they had long lost Abraham's faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham's great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous? Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men, shout — "We have Washington to our father." Alas! that it should be so; yet so it is.

          "The evil that men do, lives after them,
          The good is oft' interred with their bones."

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, lowering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!

"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."

Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world. My subject, then fellow-citizens, is AMERICAN SLAVERY. I shall see, this day, and its popular characteristics, from the slave's point of view. Standing, there, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate; I will not excuse;" I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgement is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.

But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more, and denounce less, would you persuade more, and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man, (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment. What is this but the acknowledgement that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, there will I argue with you that the slave is a man!

For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing, and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom? speaking of it relatively, and positively, negatively, and affirmatively. To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and lo offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.

What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is wrong? No! I will not. I have better employments for my time and strength, than such arguments would imply.

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

INTERNAL SLAVE TRADE

Take the American slave-trade, which, we are told by the papers, is especially prosperous just now. Ex-Senator Benton tells us that the price of men was never higher than now. He mentions the fact to show that slavery is in no danger. This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic. In several states, this trade is a chief source of wealth. It is called (in contradistinction to the foreign slave-trade) "the internal slave trade." It is, probably, called so, too, in order to divert from it the horror with which the foreign slave-trade is contemplated. That trade has long since been denounced by this government, as piracy. It has been denounced with burning words, from the high places of the nation, as an execrable traffic. To arrest it, to put an end to it, this nation keeps a squadron, at immense cost, on the coast of Africa. Everywhere, in this country, it is safe to speak of this foreign slave-trade, as a most inhuman traffic, opposed alike to the laws of God and of man. The duty to extirpate and destroy it, is admitted even by our DOCTORS OF DIVINITY. In order to put an end to it, some of these last have consented that their colored brethren (nominally free) should leave this country, and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa! It is, however, a notable fact that, while so much execration is poured out by Americans upon those engaged in the foreign slave-trade, the men engaged in the slave-trade between the states pass without condemnation, and their business is deemed honorable.

Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, the American slave-trade, sustained by American politics and American religion. Here you will see men and women reared like swine for the market. You know what is a swine-drover? I will show you a man-drover. They inhabit all our Southern States. They perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock. You will see one of these human flesh-jobbers, armed with pistol, whip and bowie-knife, driving a company of a hundred men, women, and children, from the Potomac to the slave market at New Orleans. These wretched people are to be sold singly, or in lots, to suit purchasers. They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. Mark the sad procession, as it moves wearily along, and the inhuman wretch who drives them. Hear his savage yells and his blood-chilling oaths, as he hurries on his affrighted captives! There, see the old man, with locks thinned and gray. Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! The drove moves tardily. Heat and sorrow have nearly consumed their strength; suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the centre of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on. Follow this drove to New Orleans. Attend the auction; see men examined like horses; see the forms of women rudely and brutally exposed to the shocking gaze of American slave-buyers. See this drove sold and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that arose from that scattered multitude. Tell me citizens, WHERE, under the sun, you can witness a spectacle more fiendish and shocking. Yet this is but a glance at the American slave-trade, as it exists, at this moment, in the ruling part of the United States.

I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell's Point, Baltimore, and have watched from the wharves, the slave ships in the Basin, anchored from the shore, with their cargoes of human flesh, waiting for favorable winds to waft them down the Chesapeake. There was, at that time, a grand slave mart kept at the head of Pratt Street, by Austin Woldfolk. His agents were sent into every town and county in Maryland, announcing their arrival, through the papers, and on flaming "hand-bills," headed CASH FOR NEGROES. These men were generally well dressed men, and very captivating in their manners. Ever ready to drink, to treat, and to gamble. The fate of many a slave has depended upon the turn of a single card; and many a child has been snatched from the arms of its mother by bargains arranged in a state of brutal drunkenness.

The flesh-mongers gather up their victims by dozens, and drive them, chained, to the general depot at Baltimore. When a sufficient number have been collected here, a ship is chartered, for the purpose of conveying the forlorn crew to Mobile, or to New Orleans. From the slave prison to the ship, they are usually driven in the darkness of night; for since the antislavery agitation, a certain caution is observed.

In the deep still darkness of midnight, I have been often aroused by the dead heavy footsteps, and the piteous cries of the chained gangs that passed our door. The anguish of my boyish heart was intense; and I was often consoled, when speaking to my mistress in the morning, to hear her say that the custom was very wicked; that she hated to hear the rattle of the chains, and the heart-rending cries. I was glad to find one who sympathised with me in my horror.

Fellow-citizens, this murderous traffic is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit, I see clouds of dust raised on the highways of the South; I see the bleeding footsteps; I hear the doleful wail of fettered humanity, on the way to the slave-markets, where the victims are to be sold like horses, sheep, and swine, knocked off to the highest bidder. There I see the tenderest ties ruthlessly broken, to gratify the lust, caprice and rapacity of the buyers and sellers of men. My soul sickens at the sight.

          "Is this the land your Fathers loved,
          The freedom which they toiled to win?
          Is this the earth whereon they moved?
          Are these the graves they slumber in?"

But a still more inhuman, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented.

By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized in its most horrible and revolting form. By that act, Mason & Dixon's line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves remains no longer a mere state institution, but is now an institution of the whole United States. The power is co-extensive with the star-spangled banner and American Christianity. Where these go, may also go the merciless slave-hunter. Where these are, man is not sacred. He is a bird for the sportsman's gun. By that most foul and fiendish of all human decrees, the liberty and person of every man are put in peril. Your broad republican domain is hunting ground for men. Not for thieves and robbers, enemies of society, merely, but for men guilty of no crime. Your lawmakers have commanded all good citizens to engage in this hellish sport. Your President, your Secretary of State, your lords, nobles, and ecclesiastics, enforce, as a duty you owe to your free and glorious country, and to your God, that you do this accursed thing. Not fewer than forty Americans have, within the past two years, been hunted down and, without a moment's warning, hurried away in chains, and consigned to slavery and excruciating torture. Some of these have had wives and children, dependent on them for bread; but of this, no account was made. The right of the hunter to his prey stands superior to the right of marriage, and to all rights in this republic, the rights of God included! For black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, not religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes MERCY TO THEM, A CRIME; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American JUDGE GETS TEN DOLLARS FOR EVERY VICTIM HE CONSIGNS to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, under this hell-black enactment, to send the most pious and exemplary black man into the remorseless jaws of slavery! His own testimony is nothing. He can bring no witnesses for himself. The minister of American justice is bound by the law to hear but one side; and that side, is the side of the oppressor. Let this damning fact be perpetually told. Let it be thundered around the world, that, in tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America, the seats of justice are filled with judges, who hold their offices under an open and palpable bribe, and are bound, in deciding in the case of a man's liberty, hear only his accusers!

In glaring violation of justice, in shameless disregard of the forms of administering law, in cunning arrangement to entrap the defenceless, and in diabolical intent, this Fugitive Slave Law stands alone in the annals of tyrannical legislation. I doubt if there be another nation on the globe, having the brass and the baseness to put such a law on the statute-book. If any man in this assembly thinks differently from me in this matter, and feels able to disprove my statements, I will gladly confront him at any suitable time and place he may select.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

I take this law to be one of the grossest infringements of Christian Liberty, and, if the churches and ministers of our country were not stupidly blind, or most wickedly indifferent, they, too, would so regard it.

At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance, and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness. Did this law concern the "mint, anise and cummin"— abridge the right to sing psalms, to partake of the sacrament, or to engage in any of the ceremonies of religion, it would be smitten by the thunder of a thousand pulpits. A general shout would go up from the church, demanding repeal, repeal, instant repeal! And it would go hard with that politician who presumed to solicit the votes of the people without inscribing this motto on his banner. Further, if this demand were not complied with, another Scotland would be added to the history of religious liberty, and the stern old Covenanters would be thrown into the shade. A John Knox would be seen at every church door, and heard from every pulpit, and Fillmore would have no more quarter than was shown by Knox, to the beautiful, but treacherous queen Mary of Scotland. The fact that the church of our country, (with fractional exceptions), does not esteem "the Fugitive Slave Law" as a declaration of war against religious liberty, implies that that church regards religion simply as a form of worship, an empty ceremony, and not a vital principle, requiring active benevolence, justice, love and good will towards man. It esteems sacrifice above mercy; psalm-singing above right doing; solemn meetings above practical righteousness. A worship that can be conducted by persons who refuse to give shelter to the houseless, to give bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, and who enjoin obedience to a law forbidding these acts of mercy, is a curse, not a blessing to mankind. The Bible addresses all such persons as "scribes, pharisees, hypocrites, who pay tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith."

THE CHURCH RESPONSIBLE

But the church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors. It has made itself the bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave-hunters. Many of its most eloquent Divines, who stand as the very lights of the church, have shamelessly given the sanction of religion and the Bible to the whole slave system. They have taught that man may, properly, be a slave; that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God; that to send back an escaped bondman to his master is clearly the duty of all the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.

For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throne of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs. It is not that "pure and undefiled religion" which is from above, and which is "first pure, then peaceable, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy." But a religion which favors the rich against the poor; which exalts the proud above the humble; which divides mankind into two classes, tyrants and slaves; which says to the man in chains, stay there; and to the oppressor, oppress on; it is a religion which may be professed and enjoyed by all the robbers and enslavers of mankind; it makes God a respecter of persons, denies his fatherhood of the race, and tramples in the dust the great truth of the brotherhood of man. All this we affirm to be true of the popular church, and the popular worship of our land and nation — a religion, a church, and a worship which, on the authority of inspired wisdom, we pronounce to be an abomination in the sight of God. In the language of Isaiah, the American church might be well addressed, "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth. They are a trouble to me; I am weary to bear them; and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea! when ye make many prayers, I will not hear. YOUR HANDS ARE FULL OF BLOOD; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgement; relieve the oppressed; judge for the fatherless; plead for the widow."

The American church is guilty, when viewed in connection with what it is doing to uphold slavery; but it is superlatively guilty when viewed in connection with its ability to abolish slavery. The sin of which it is guilty is one of omission as well as of commission. Albert Barnes but uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that "There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it."

Let the religious press, the pulpit, the Sunday school, the conference meeting, the great ecclesiastical, missionary, Bible and tract associations of the land array their immense powers against slavery and slave-holding; and the whole system of crime and blood would be scattered to the winds; and that they do not do this involves them in the most awful responsibility of which the mind can conceive.

In prosecuting the anti-slavery enterprise, we have been asked to spare the church, to spare the ministry; but how, we ask, could such a thing be done? We are met on the threshold of our efforts for the redemption of the slave, by the church and ministry of the country, in battle arrayed against us; and we are compelled to fight or flee. From what quarter, I beg to know, has proceeded a fire so deadly upon our ranks, during the last two years, as from the Northern pulpit? As the champions of oppressors, the chosen men of American theology have appeared — men, honored for their so-called piety, and their real learning. The LORDS of Buffalo, the SPRINGS of New York, the LATHROPS of Auburn, the COXES and SPENCERS of Brooklyn, the GANNETS and SHARPS of Boston, the DEWEYS of Washington, and other great religious lights of the land, have, in utter denial of the authority of Him, by whom they professed to he called to the ministry, deliberately taught us, against the example of the Hebrews and against the remonstrance of the Apostles, they teach "that we ought to obey man's law before the law of God."

My spirit wearies of such blasphemy; and how such men can be supported, as the "standing types and representatives of Jesus Christ," is a mystery which I leave others to penetrate. In speaking of the American church, however, let it be distinctly understood that I mean the great mass of the religious organizations of our land. There are exceptions, and I thank God that there are. Noble men may be found, scattered all over these Northern States, of whom Henry Ward Beecher of Brooklyn, Samuel J. May of Syracuse, and my esteemed friend on the platform, are shining examples; and let me say further, that upon these men lies the duty to inspire our ranks with high religious faith and zeal, and to cheer us on in the great mission of the slave's redemption from his chains.

RELIGION IN ENGLAND AND RELIGION IN AMERICA

One is struck with the difference between the attitude of the American church towards the anti-slavery movement, and that occupied by the churches in England towards a similar movement in that country. There, the church, true to its mission of ameliorating, elevating, and improving the condition of mankind, came forward promptly, bound up the wounds of the West Indian slave, and restored him to his liberty. There, the question of emancipation was a high[ly] religious question. It was demanded, in the name of humanity, and according to the law of the living God. The Sharps, the Clarksons, the Wilberforces, the Buxtons, and Burchells and the Knibbs, were alike famous for their piety, and for their philanthropy. The anti-slavery movement there was not an anti-church movement, for the reason that the church took its full share in prosecuting that movement: and the anti-slavery movement in this country will cease to be an anti-church movement, when the church of this country shall assume a favorable, instead of a hostile position towards that movement. Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization, and your pure Christianity, while the whole political power of the nation (as embodied in the two great political parties), is solemnly pledged to support and perpetuate the enslavement of three millions of your countrymen. You hurl your anathemas at the crowned headed tyrants of Russia and Austria, and pride yourselves on your Democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and bodyguards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina. You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them, and pour out your money to them like water; but the fugitives from your own land you advertise, hunt, arrest, shoot and kill. You glory in your refinement and your universal education; yet you maintain a system as barbarous and dreadful as ever stained the character of a nation — a system begun in avarice, supported in pride, and perpetuated in cruelty. You shed tears over fallen Hungary, and make the sad story of her wrongs the theme of your poets, statesmen and orators, till your gallant sons are ready to fly to arms to vindicate her cause against her oppressors; but, in regard to the ten thousand wrongs of the American slave, you would enforce the strictest silence, and would hail him as an enemy of the nation who dares to make those wrongs the subject of public discourse! You are all on fire at the mention of liberty for France or for Ireland; but are as cold as an iceberg at the thought of liberty for the enslaved of America. You discourse eloquently on the dignity of labor; yet, you sustain a system which, in its very essence, casts a stigma upon labor. You can bare your bosom to the storm of British artillery to throw off a threepenny tax on tea; and yet wring the last hard-earned farthing from the grasp of the black laborers of your country. You profess to believe "that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth," and hath commanded all men, everywhere to love one another; yet you notoriously hate, (and glory in your hatred), all men whose skins are not colored like your own. You declare, before the world, and are understood by the world to declare, that you "hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that, among these are, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and yet, you hold securely, in a bondage which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson, "is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose," a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country.

Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home. It saps the foundation of religion; it makes your name a hissing, and a by word to a mocking earth. It is the antagonistic force in your government, the only thing that seriously disturbs and endangers your Union. It fetters your progress; it is the enemy of improvement, the deadly foe of education; it fosters pride; it breeds insolence; it promotes vice; it shelters crime; it is a curse to the earth that supports it; and yet, you cling to it, as if it were the sheet anchor of all your hopes. Oh! be warned! be warned! a horrible reptile is coiled up in your nation's bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!

THE CONSTITUTION

But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.

Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped

          "To palter with us in a double sense:
              And keep the word of promise to the ear,
              But break it to the heart."

And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practised on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length — nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.

Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a tract of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tell us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument.

Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.

I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion.

Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. "Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:

          God speed the year of jubilee              
              The wide world o'er!
          When from their galling chains set free,
              Th' oppress'd shall vilely bend the knee,
          And wear the yoke of tyranny
              Like brutes no more.
          That year will come, and freedom's reign,
          To man his plundered rights again
              Restore.

          God speed the day when human blood
              Shall cease to flow!
          In every clime be understood,
          The claims of human brotherhood,
          And each return for evil, good,
              Not blow for blow;
          That day will come all feuds to end
          And change into a faithful friend
              Each foe.

          God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
              When none on earth
          Shall exercise a lordly power,
          Nor in a tyrant's presence cower;
          But all to manhood's stature tower,
              By equal birth!
          THAT HOUR WILL, COME, to each, to all,
          And from his prison-house, the thrall
              Go forth.

          Until that year, day, hour, arrive,
          With head, and heart, and hand I'll strive,
          To break the rod, and rend the gyve,
          The spoiler of his prey deprive--
              So witness Heaven!
          And never from my chosen post,
          Whate'er the peril or the cost,
              Be driven.

Footnotes

  1. This noun means "a command or fact of will that creates something without further effort." This word is used in the Bible to refer to acts of God.

    — AllisonWB
  2. Garrison’s triumphant poem served as an appropriate epilogue to Douglass’s two-hour-long speech. The poem epitomized many of Douglass’s ideas about the need to break the chains of slavery and tear down tyranny. With the repetition of the phrase “God speed,” Garrison sends good wishes to his audience in their fight to end slavery. According to John W. Blassingame, a scholar on American slavery, these words invigorated the audience, specifically the abolitionists and the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Association. After Douglass finished reciting the poem and began collecting his papers, the audience broke the silence with “a universal burst of applause.”

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  3. Douglass views the interconnectedness of the industrial world as a sign of progress, one that perhaps foretells the potential for this young nation. He subtly points to some of the major technological strides of the mid-19th century: the steam engine, which made travel by steam locomotion or steamship a mere matter of days; and the telegraph, developed during the 1830s and 1840s by Samuel Morse, which could transmit messages from one side of the Atlantic Ocean to the other through electrical signals.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  4. By incorporating this phrase from Isaiah 59:1, Douglass creates an analogy between the strength of the Lord to deliver the exiled Israelites back to their homeland and the hope that slavery will perish. He ends the speech with renewed vigor, certain in the knowledge that as the lord is strong, so the foundation of slavery is weak.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  5. Douglass remains impartial—as he often does—when he considers the debate over whether the Constitution supports slavery. Americans have long debated how the Constitution should be interpreted. On one hand, it can be read as an anti-slavery document because it excludes the word “slave.” On the other hand, it upholds the Three-Fifths Compromise, which neither considers slaves citizens nor grants them any human rights. Fellow abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, for example claimed the document was “an agreement with Hell.” To Douglass, the matter is inconsequential. He praises the document nevertheless and believes it lays the proper groundwork for the nation to progress.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  6. Unlike Vice President Dallas, US Senator of Georgia and Attorney General to President Andrew Jackson, John M. Berrien (1781-1856), supported states’ rights above federal law. By pointing to a variety of politicians of his day, Douglass asserts that no matter one’s political associations, most believed in the supremacy of the Constitution and in an individual’s right to form an opinion on the document.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  7. George Mifflin Dallas (1792-1864) served as Mayor of Philadelphia and 11th Vice President to James K. Polk. As a member of the Democratic Party, specifically the “Family party” faction, Dallas advocated for an active federal government and believed in the power of the Constitution as a “plain and intelligible” document, meaning that all men, no matter their age or rank, had the capacity to read and understand it.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  8. Between 1852 and 1870, Napoleon III (1808–1873), nephew of Napoleon I, ruled as emperor of France. Douglass denigrates the French authoritarian government and the insecure rights of the French as subordinate. He argues that what separates Americans from the French is their right to form their own opinions on the meaning of the Constitution. This differentiation—the ability to think and speak freely—is what separates democracy from dictatorship.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  9. To demonstrate his point, Douglass appeals to logos in a manner that likely resonated with Rochesterians. He hypothetically proposes that if lawmakers were to create a law that endowed the city of Rochester with a piece of land, but did not mention the actual piece of land, the law would be null. This concept is analogous to slavery—how can slavery be enforced if is never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  10. In this paragraph, Douglass condemns Northerners who form a pro-slavery perspective from their reading of the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not explicitly mention the terms “slavery, slaveholding, nor slave,” Douglass denies that the document could uphold slavery. The instrument—meaning the Constitution—does not “sanction” slavery; rather, it sanctions liberty.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  11. The four men Douglas cites—Spooner (1808-1887), Goodell (1792-1878), Sewall (1799-1888), and Smith (1797-1874)—were all abolitionists. Similarly to Douglass, they wrote at length about one of the major conundrums of the Constitution: despite the greatness of the founding fathers, they nonetheless created a document that arguably harbored pro-slavery sentiments. Douglass tries to grapple with this idea and concedes that although the founding fathers were indeed honest, they were nevertheless “the veriest imposters.”

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  12. Douglass alludes to Act V, Scene VIII of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. In this final act, Macduff challenges Macbeth to a duel and kills him. Before he dies, Macbeth considers committing suicide and acknowledges that the witches have deceived him with their doublespeak. Douglass empathizes with Macbeth because he feels as though, like the witches, the founding fathers employed doublespeak in the Constitution, specifically using ambiguous language in regards to slavery.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  13. This metaphor likens slavery to a “horrible reptile” and the United States to a woman. The woman, who is described as pure and “tender,” nurtures this snake-like creature. Douglass imagines eradicating slavery by striking down the creature from the woman’s bosom.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  14. The subject of the sentence is the “existence of slavery.” Douglass only mentions this subject once, before he replaces it with the pronoun “it.” In doing so, Douglass no longer mentions slavery explicitly, only implicitly. With the use of anaphora and the repetition of “it” at the beginning of the remaining sentences, Douglass vilifies slavery as something so heinous as to be unnameable.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  15. An anathema is a formal denouncement or damning. The term has Greek and Latin ecclesiastical roots, and archaically it meant cutting someone off from the church or sending them to hell. In Douglass’s speech, he uses the term to describe how Americans condemn those whom they believe to hold antithetical values.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  16. Albert Barnes (1798–1870) was a Presbyterian theologian, preacher, and writer. His “Notes on the New Testament” and his “Scriptural Views of Slavery” were widely distributed and read by the time of this speech. Barnes, like Douglass, wrote about the codependency between Christianity and slavery, specifically how hypocritical Christian values established and sustained slavery.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  17. This quotation originates from the biblical Book of James 3:17, which states that heaven is “pure,” “peaceable,” and “full of mercy.” If that is so, Douglass claims, then how could these self-professed Christians act like “oppressors” and “tyrants”? Following the quotation, Douglass issues a diatribe on the hypocrisies of religion. He accomplishes this by relying heavily on anaphora, specifically the repetition of the word “which.” Using this literary technique, Douglass emphatically lists the multitudinous hypocrisies of Christianity, including how they favor the rich above the poor and the oppressors above the oppressed.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  18. The noun “bulwark” has several meanings. In most cases, it literally means a defensive wall; however, figuratively it connotes protection. Here, Douglass employs the second definition to illustrate how the church supports and uphold the framework of slavery.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  19. This series of hyphenated words highlights the hypocrisy of a so-called “Christian America.” Douglas poses the question: if the United States is as it claims—“tyrant-killing” and “people-loving”—then why would it simultaneously allow for judges to take bribes and torture innocent men under the Fugitive Slave Act? The audience clearly understands this hypocrisy. Nevertheless, Douglass uses this rhetorical device to highlight his point.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  20. With this metaphor, Douglass anthropomorphizes slavery as a beast with “remorseless jaws.” This technique conjures an image of slavery as a vile beast with large teeth who terrorizes and eats black men.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  21. Throughout this section of the speech, Douglass employs hunting imagery and compares, metaphorically, the prey with the slave and the hunter with the slave trader.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  22. This pithy remark employs sibilance, a literary device where certain consonants pass through the lips and tongues of the speaker and in turn, produce hissing sounds. The three repeated “s” sounds form this hissing sound and demonstrate audibly the sort of disgust Douglass must have felt as he gave this speech.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  23. The words “caprice” and “rapacity” mean the propensity to exhibit random changes in behavior and excessive greed, respectively. Douglass talks of how lives in the internal slave trade are bought and sold at the whims of the slave traders.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  24. The word “monger” describes someone who deals or trades in a specific market. Similarly to a flesh-jobber, a “flesh-monger” is someone who buys and sells slaves. The language here is excessively violent, and again, denotes that slaves are not human, but merely meat to be collected, shipped, and sold at market.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  25. A “jobber” is an independent worker who buys products from manufacturers and and sells them to retailers. From context, the audience may infer that a “human flesh-jobber” is someone who buys and sells slaves and drives them from one market to another by violent means, “armed with pistol, whip, and bowie-knife.” By using the term “flesh,” the commodity—the slaves—are no longer human; they are meat in a market.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  26. Through the use of simile, Douglass likens the treatment of slaves involved in the internal slave trade with that of swine, or pigs. This literary device highlights the inhumane conditions of the internal slave trade. In the next line, he asks his audience if they know of “swine-droving,” a practice of moving pigs to market. This too, he says, is similar to the practice of moving human livestock from market to market.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  27. Here, Douglass refers to the Africa Squadron, a unit of the US Navy in operation from 1819 to 1861 which aimed to guard the Western coast of Africa in order to suppress the transatlantic slave trade. By mentioning this squadron, he highlights the hypocrisy of the US government, which prevents intercontinental slavery but still maintains the domestic slave trade.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  28. Douglass denounces slavery in the most derogatory terms and calls the slave trade “execrable,” meaning appalling or atrocious. Throughout this paragraph, he uses several other words that use the same “ex-” prefix such as “extirpate,” which means to eradicate, and “execration,” which means to denounce. This combination of harsh-sounding words creates a cacophonous and biting rhetoric.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  29. Thomas Hart Benton (1782-1858), a United States Senator from Missouri, was a proponent of Manifest Destiny, the belief that the United States was predestined to expand within North America. Although early in his career Benton was pro-slavery, during the 1840s he changed his mind on the matter and fought to keep slavery within the nation’s current borders.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  30. This call to arms is replete with nature-based imagery. Douglass calls for fire and thunder, because less forceful tactics have so far been useless in improving conditions for black people. This powerful, natural imagery evokes a sense of chaos, of winds howling, and of the earth shaking and opening up for cataclysmic change.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  31. Here, Douglass employs a rhetorical question-and-answer strategy. He poses a series of rhetorical questions which he then answers with an emphatic exclamation. In doing so, he argues that he will not waste his time in arguing why black men are not, as many whites claim, beasts or brutes.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  32. This phrase speaks to the longstanding stereotype during this period of the “black brute.” Blacks were often conveyed in cartoons and caricatures as bestial, barbaric, and subhuman creatures. Douglass argues that this image of the black man is a gross misconception.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  33. The word “canopy” describes a cloth covering a bed or throne. Perhaps this image illustrates how heaven encompasses all of humankind. The difference between black and white is meaningless under the auspices of heaven.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  34. As a rhetorical device, long lists like this one serve to enforce a claim. Here, Douglass aims to humanize black people by highlighting their roles in society despite white people’s best efforts to eradicate or overlook them.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  35. Douglass alludes to a common biblical image of the “beasts of the field,” or a herd of animals. This term metaphorically likens blacks to property or chattel, and emphasizes their status in society as inhuman creatures.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  36. As a result of Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831, Virginia state laws further restricted black people’s access to basic education, as well as their right to assemble and preach. The state feared that a literate black population might congregate and replicate the 1831 rebellion. Just around this time, Douglass, then a teenager, was secretly learning to read and write. He lays out this arduous process in Chapter Seven of his autobiography [Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave] (https://www.owleyes.org/text/narrative-life/read/chapter-7#root-75209-1/92565). At first, he learns from his “tender-hearted” mistress, Mrs. Auld. However, she eventually stops because slavery, he writes, has hardened her. He then learns to read and write in miscellaneous ways, like bribing poor boys with bread in exchange for tutoring or copying words from a dictionary.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  37. Historians Howard Allen and Jerome Chubb maintain Douglass’s claim that the court systems disproportionately harmed black people; however, they cite slightly different numbers. For example, 1850 Virginia state law condemned whites to death for only four crimes, including murder, treason, and two counts of arson. In contrast, blacks could face the death penalty for sixty-eight offenses. Nevertheless, Douglass’s argument speaks to the overwhelming disparities between black and whites in the Virginian court system.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  38. One of Douglass’s strengths as an orator and writer was his ability to weigh both sides of an argument. This practice bolstered his credibility because it demonstrated that he was able to think analytically. Here, he considers what his opponents might say in response to his speech. He muses that perhaps they will argue that abolitionists are actually getting in the way of their own efforts because they do not appeal to the masses. He easily dismantles this argument with a series of rhetorical questions that highlight the inanity of slavery. He follows these with an elaborate example that demonstrates the injustice of the crime laws in the state of Virginia.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  39. Douglass alludes to an editorial entitled “To the Public” written by William Lloyd Garrison, his friend and fellow abolitionist in the American Anti-Slavery Society. Garrison wrote fervently about abolitionist efforts in his newspaper, The Liberator. By quoting Garrison, Douglass pays homage to his friend and the efforts of white abolitionists, many of whom constituted his audience.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  40. Earlier in the speech, Douglass spoke about the importance of the present over the past and future. The present, he said, was the time for Americans to improve themselves. However, as he connects back to his previous thought, his stance shifts radically and he takes a pessimistic turn. He loudly denounces slavery as the “great sin and shame of America” and claims that the American people will never be able to absolve themselves of its heinous past—not now, or likely ever.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  41. Douglass uses visual imagery to demonstrate the dichotomy between the colors white and black. In Western cultures, the color white traditionally illustrates life and prosperity, while black describes its opposite—darkness, death, and mourning. This wordplay suggests that by ostracizing black people, the country is made even darker.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  42. Douglass begins this paragraph with an exclamation that contrasts the audience’s sense of jubilation against his sense of mourning. He achieves this with the use of an auditory image wherein he juxtaposes a patriotic, loud sound against a pitiful cry.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  43. This lament is charged with powerful diction, including the adjectives “plaintive,” “peeled,” and “woe-smitten.” “Plaintive” suggests the expression of mourning, “peeled” suggests being stripped or exposed, and “woe-smitten” describes the feeling of being struck with sorrow. Combined, these terms speak to the agony Douglass feels as he grieves for the nation.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  44. In this accusation, Douglass employs two turns of phrase and pits the audience—“you”—against him—“I.” These pithy sentences stand out against the more decorous language he generally uses to further compound his point.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  45. Douglass argues that he will not celebrate Independence Day because doing so would be incompatible with his beliefs. He quotes Isaiah 35:6—which describes the mute learning to speak and the lame learning to leap—as an example of the magnitude of miracle required for Douglass, or anyone like him torn from the “chains of servitude,” to change their minds about how they feel about the 4th of July.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  46. Much of the power of Douglass’s rhetoric is in its subversiveness. Throughout his speech, Douglass rarely delineates between white and black—he only references the “black” man four times, and the “white” man once. He doesn’t need to spell out this distinction to his audience because his message is made implicit through the use of the pronouns “you” (the audience) and “us.” This technique subliminally severs the relationship between himself and his audience and, in turn, drives his larger points home.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  47. From the start of this section, Douglass makes clear that he wants to speak about the present. In order to underscore his intentions, he includes the sixth verse from “A Psalm of Life,” written by American poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807–1882). The poem encourages readers to live life to the fullest; this verse speaks specifically on the importance of living in the present, letting go of the past, and not worrying about the future.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  48. First coined by Shakespeare in [Henry V] (https://www.owleyes.org/text/henry-5/read/act-iv-scene-3#root-71845-14), the term “household words” describes words or ideas that laymen understand; they are spoken informally at home and taught thoroughly in schools. Douglass assumes that the white audience members are well-versed in the history of the American Revolution, perhaps even more so than he is.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  49. The word “jubilee,” which originates from Levitical law to commemorate the liberation of Hebrew slaves, describes a time of celebration. Douglass uses the term to describe the exuberance and joyfulness of Independence Day.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  50. Against the often elaborate language of the speech, this pithy exclamation stands out. With this rhetorical strategy, Douglass indicates that the preceding few paragraphs will be important and demand the audience’s attention.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  51. Douglass employs anaphora, a literary device that dates as far back as psalmic writing. With anaphora, the writer or speaker repeats the first word or fragment of a sentence in order to add emphasis. The first four sentences of this paragraph begin with the repetition of “they,” which places the emphasis on the subject of the paragraph: the founding fathers. Through this repetitive tool and the repetition of similar sentence structures, Douglass explains that their greatness also came from their ability to be at once peaceful and revolutionary, patient and persistent. Their ability to discern when and how to act made them revolutionary leaders.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  52. While Douglass clearly disagrees with the inclusion of slavery in the nation’s founding, he acknowledges that the founding fathers were great and brave men. In a powerful rhetorical move—one he rarely uses throughout the speech—he aligns himself with the audience in order to jointly commemorate the greatness of these men.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  53. Here, Douglass praises the Patriots of the American Revolution who fought for their cause despite how they were perceived. With this exclamation, he calls the audience to act as the Patriots did and to stand up for the anti-slavery cause. In its resonant phrasing, Douglass’s language in this passage alludes to a quotation from Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed.”

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  54. Douglass finishes the extended metaphor of nations as rivers by employing auditory, visual, and tactile imagery with the words “howl,” “abyss,” and “wind.” Such language helped the audience hear, see, and feel this metaphor and sense his pessimism as he likens the decline of nations to the drying up of rivers.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  55. Douglass uses the word “shroud” as a verb to describe the potential state of the country. “To shroud” has several definitions: more broadly, it means to cover and conceal; however, it also means to cover a corpse with a veil or fabric for burial. With the use of this grotesque imagery, Douglass warns that if the young nation continues down the same destructive path, it may face a gloomy future.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  56. Corinthian Hall, located in Rochester, NY, was built in 1849 by architect Henry Searle. The hall hosted several renowned abolitionists and women’s rights advocates such as Susan B. Anthony, William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. During the 1870s and 1880s, Corinthian Hall served as the site for conventions lead by the National Liberal League and the New York State Freethinkers Association. The Hall was destroyed in 1898, rebuilt in 1904, and finally demolished in 1928.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  57. At the outset, Douglass establishes his ethos to the audience. He claims that he is “limited” and inexperienced with regard to the subject at hand. The use of the adjective “quailing” and the adverb “shrinkingly” demonstrate his supposed hesitancy and meekness. Although Douglass was a powerful and passionate writer and orator—by this time, he had written a memoir as well as myriad articles and speeches—he understood the importance of establishing a relatable rapport with his audience. He begins the speech by demonstrating his credibility in a humble and level-headed appeal to ethos.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  58. On July 5th, 1852, Douglass delivered his speech in Corinthian Hall before the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Association and a crowd of influential politicians, including President Millard Fillmore. After Zachary Taylor’s death in 1850, Vice President Millard Fillmore resumed office until 1853. Fillmore’s chief contribution to the presidency was the Compromise of 1850, which aimed to stave off an impending civil war, resolve issues regarding slavery, and settle territorial disputes after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). The Compromise consisted of five Congressional bills, including an amended Fugitive Slave Act. This act, which attracted a great deal of criticism from Douglass, dictated that runaway slaves in the North must be returned to their owners.

    — Tess, Owl Eyes Staff
  59. Douglass makes a Biblical reference to Babylon, which, according to the Bible, was destroyed by God because of Babylonians' immoral behavior.

    — AllisonWB
  60. This is a Biblical reference from Isaiah 35:6. "Hart" is a deer.

    — AllisonWB
  61. Obdurate is an adjective meaning "stubbornly persistent in wrongdoing" or "resistant to persuasion".

    — AllisonWB
  62. A ring bolt is a piece of hardware used to anchor a chain to a solid surface.

    — AllisonWB
  63. In this paragraph, Douglass redirects his anger from the Southern “doctors of divinity” who protect slavery to the prominent ministers and theologians of the North. To avoid any ambiguity, he lists them all by name: John Chase Lord (1805–1877), Gardiner Spring (1785–1873), Leonard E. Lathrop (1796–1857), Samuel Hanson Cox (1793–1880), Ichabod Spencer (1798–1854), Ezra Stiles Gannett (1801–1871), Daniel Sharp (1783–1853), and Orville Dewey (1794–1882). Douglass accuses these ministers of spreading “a fire so deadly upon our ranks.” As the paragraph reaches its conclusion, Douglass reveals the nature of their error: teaching Northerners and abolitionists that they “ought to obey man’s law before the law of God.” Such a sentiment runs counter to Douglass’s philosophy, which is to fight for what is ethically correct, regardless of the laws and dictates of the government.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  64. Continuing his tirade against the Christians complicit in the institution of American slavery, Douglass boldly claims that pro-slavery Christians are greater sources of infidelity—or lack of faith—than some of the leading atheist intellectuals. Among these, Douglass cites Thomas Paine (1737–1809), who published his radical views on religion in The Age of Reason; Voltaire (1694–1778), whose “Treatise on Tolerance” posited an open-ended approach to belief that rejected organized religion; and Henry Bolingbroke (1678–1751), who penned scathing attacks on the Christian church in his Letters on the Study of History. Douglass’s accusation that pro-slavery Christians “confirm[...] infidels” is a humorous oxymoron, for confirmation is the ritual reaffirmation of a Christian’s faith.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  65. In an appeal to pathos, Douglass takes up a scandalous perspective on the Christian church and on religion in general. His aim here is not to denounce the Christian faith; his aim is to play devil’s advocate against the supporters of slavery who use Christianity as an argumentative tool. The pathos arises from the extremity of his position, inviting in “infidelity” and “atheism” in the name of abolition. At a time when the American population was overwhelmingly Christian, these words would have evoked a powerful emotional reaction.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  66. In this paragraph, Douglass denounces the Christian church in the United States for its position on slavery. As Douglass sees it, the church is worse than “indifferent to the wrongs of the slave” because it “takes sides with the oppressors.” While Douglass’s assertion that the entire Christian population supported slavery is an exaggeration, he is correct to point out the great extent to which slavery supporters used Christian values to justify their position.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  67. The abolitionist movement—the “antislavery agitation” Douglass refers to—began in the 1830s in Northern churches and among Northern politicians. They advocated for the immediate emancipation of all slaves and an end to racial segregation and discrimination. However, since slavery was still legal, those who participated in the internal slave trade often transported slaves under cover of night to avoid obviously advertising their industry for fear of repercussions.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  68. In his discussion of the church’s neglect of the Fugitive Slave Act, Douglass draws on the history of the Scottish Reformation, which took place between 1559 and 1560. Douglass argues that if American Christian groups were to acknowledge the stark immorality of the Fugitive Slave Act, they would be so moved against it that they would be willing to defect from the common parishes and establish a new church with purer values, just as John Knox and the Scottish Calvinists did in 1559.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  69. Douglass discusses the Christian community’s reaction to the Fugitive Slave Act. Fittingly, he quotes scripture to prove his point, drawing on a passage from Matthew 23:23. In the passage, Jesus Christ berates a group of worshippers for adhering to the details of religious law—to the point of paying taxes on their herbs, such as “mint, anise, and cummin”—while failing to appreciate the spirit of the law and to live a genuinely religious life. Douglass criticizes his contemporary Christians, suggesting that if the particulars of their religious practices were infringed on, they would be up in arms; yet the clearly unjust Fugitive Slave Act aroused no anger among them, despite their supposedly humanitarian values.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  70. In this passage, Douglass expresses his outrage over one particular stipulation set forth by the Fugitive Slave Act. Section 8 of the act offers federal commissioners monetary incentives for handing over the captured African American to the claimant:

    ...in all cases where the proceedings are before a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to the claimant, his agent or attorney; or a fee of five dollars in cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner, warrant such certificate and delivery….

    These cash incentives swayed the decisions of the commissioners, who sent 96.8% of the tried African Americans to the claimant.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  71. Here Douglass refers to the effects of the Fugitive Slave Act, one of the provisions of the Compromise of 1850. The Fugitive Slave Act dictated that slaves who fled to the North were still considered captive by law and thus were to be returned to their owners. Douglass cites an estimation that forty African Americans were captured in the North and sent to slavery between 1850 and 1852. Modern studies indicate that between 1850 and 1860, 343 African Americans were caught and tried by commissioners, of whom 332 were sent to slavery in the South.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  72. Here Douglass refers to the Compromise of 1850. The compromise infuriated abolitionists because it violated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which, as Douglass notes, established the Mason-Dixon line along the 36th parallel, prohibiting slavery in the North and legalizing it in the South. The 1850 Compromise allowed slavery in newly annexed states, even those—like California—north of the Mason-Dixon line. Millard Fillmore, the president who had backed the compromise, was in attendance at Douglass’s speech and likely felt this recrimination.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  73. Douglass recites the opening stanza of John Greenleaf Whittier’s poem “Stanzas for the Times,” penned in 1835. Whittier was a Quaker, a poet, and a staunch abolitionist. His “Stanzas” express the same mixture of disbelief, disappointment, and disillusionment that Douglass does throughout this speech. The poem’s central paradox is one that Douglass returns to again and again: the land on which America’s founders established a free nation is now overrun with slavery.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  74. Douglass was correct in his assertion about the thriving nature of the slave trade. Though the volume of the transatlantic slave trade from Africa dwindled in the 1850s, the internal slave trade flourished and the price of slaves doubled in the decade following Douglass’s speech. In 1852, the average price of a slave was $450; by the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, that number was close to $1000.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  75. In this paragraph, Douglass addresses the economic enormity of American slavery. While Douglass gestures at the scale of the institution with the mention of the “millions[...] pocketed every year,” he does not cite statistics. According to contemporary Civil War scholar David W. Blight, by 1860 there were more millionaires in the lower Mississippi Valley—all of them slaveholders—than in the rest of the United States. The four-million slaves in the South were worth a combined $3.5 billion, collectively making them the largest financial asset in the US economy. Slaves were more valuable than all of the nation’s industrial manufacturing and railroads put together. In retrospect, slavery was an economic issue, not a theological one, and Douglass suspected this truth as early as 1852, though he lacked the figures to illustrate it.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  76. In this critical section of the speech, Douglass explores the tension at the heart of the occasion and answers the question, “What, to the American slave, is the 4th of July?” His reply arrives in a stormy list of descriptors: a “sham,” a “vanity,” a “hollow mockery,” and “mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy.” His use of anaphora, with the repetition of the pronoun “your,” offers forth a rhythmic condemnation of his audience. Douglass makes clear that the higher the feelings of positive patriotism shared among white Americans, the deeper the feelings of hurt, exclusion, and cynicism among African Americans. Academics Robert L. Heath and Damion Waymer have coined this situation the “paradox of the positive”: when one interest group celebrates, certain others are likely to experience an opposite, negative reaction.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  77. Many of slavery’s staunchest supporters in the South used religious arguments to defend the institution. Here Douglass alludes to these religiously trained defenders, many of whom were “doctors of divinity” who used biblical scholarship to argue for the sanctity of slavery. These scholars used textual evidence, including Abraham’s ownership of slaves and the commandment that “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s[...] male or female servant.” One of the best-known Biblical defenses of slavery was “The Christian Doctrine of Slavery,” published in 1857 by George Armstrong, a doctor of divinity. Douglass saw no validity in such argumentation.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  78. At the time of Douglass’s speech, and throughout the 19th century, the Republican party was the progressive force in United States politics. On the most basic level, Republicans valued strong centralized governance and consistent rights and regulations for all Americans. The more progressive Republicans, known as the “Radical Republicans” from the 1850s through the 1870s, valued social change. Many members of Douglass’s audience were such progressives, pushing for abolition and equal rights for women and African Americans at a time when those causes were largely ignored in Washington. Douglass, speaking of the evils of slavery, asks, “Is that a question for Republicans?” The question is rhetorical—Republicans know the answer.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  79. In this paragraph, Douglass questions the central purpose of his speech. As a known abolitionist addressing an audience of fellow abolitionists, Douglass wonders whether he must even “argue the wrongfulness of slavery” to the crowd. This is a rhetorical question, for the answer is clear—the abolitionists need no convincing. Despite Douglass’s outspoken inquiries, his question offers him the opportunity to underscore the absolute evils of slavery.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  80. In this passage, Douglass recites the first six lines of Psalm 137, from the Bible. Psalm 137 is often titled “By the Rivers of Babylon” and tells of the Babylonian exile—the period in which a population of Jews from Jerusalem were held captive after being defeated by the Babylonians in 607 BCE. The psalm describes how the captors asked the exiled Jews to sing. Frederick Douglass recites this psalm in order to illustrate the similarity between his own situation—as an African American asked to give a Fourth of July speech to a white audience—and that of the Jewish captives asked to sing “in a strange land.”

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  81. In this paragraph, Douglass reaches a new height of provocation. The “man in fetters”—or chains—he describes is himself, for here Douglass points to the central tension of the day: on the holiday which most celebrates American liberty, African Americans most keenly feel the weight of oppression and hypocrisy. Douglass makes this tension personal by blaming the gathering of abolitionists, most of them white, for inviting him to join in the festivities. Douglass accuses his audience and hosts—the Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society of Rochester—of “mockery.” Because readers encounter this speech as a written document, it is difficult to know whether Douglass intended these words to be facetious, but in any event their tone is surely sharp.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  82. Here Douglass reiterates how he stands apart from his audience and to the American people. He expresses this distance with a clever play on words, stating that he is not “within the pale of this glorious anniversary.” The noun “pale” refers to a bounded area of land. It derives from the Latin palus, meaning “stake”; stake relates to the fence or pal-isade that marks the boundary of a pale. Douglass also uses “pale” in the adjectival sense, ultimately pointing to the pale of white—or pale—Americans from which he, as an African American, is excluded.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  83. In this passage, Douglass poses a series of rhetorical question, essentially asking whether or not he is expected to “express devout gratitude” despite the current political climate. He asks what national independence has to do with him if the Declaration of Independence does not afford him the same rights as it does to the members of his audience. This long string of questions forcefully implies that he cannot take part in a celebration that so blatantly excludes him.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  84. These lines are drawn from Marc Antony’s famous speech in Act III, Scene II of William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Douglass repurposes these lines, originally intended for the deceased Julius Caesar, in reference to George Washington. Specifically, Douglass suggests that the good deeds Washington accomplished during his life—freeing his slaves, for example—is undone by the pernicious acts of those who hypocritically align themselves with his legacy.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  85. Here Douglass alludes to George Washington (1732–1799), who in his will ordered that his 123 slaves be set free upon the death of his wife Martha. One year after Washington’s death, Martha set the slaves free prematurely. Douglass uses the will to prove Washington’s virtue and, in turn, to illustrate the hypocrisy of contemporary Americans who consider Washington their father and yet continue to support the institution of slavery.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  86. The “children of Jacob” refers broadly to the Jewish people. According to the biblical Book of Genesis, Jacob had twelve sons, each of whom became the founder of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Douglass makes the point here that Jewish people proudly wear their relation to Abraham—Jacob’s grandfather and the patriarch of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions. Douglass uses these claims as a comparison to the behavior of his contemporaries in the United States who boast of their relations to the nation’s fathers without properly living up to the ideals they set forth.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  87. Sydney Smith (1771–1845) was an English preacher, activist, and moral philosopher. He became well known in London society during the first half of the 19th century for his rousing orations and sermons. His politics were highly progressive and similar to those of Douglass; Smith advocated for women’s rights and the abolition of slavery at a time when those causes were considered radical. Douglass cites Smith for an observation the preacher once made about how people often praise their ancestors in order to excuse their own faults.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  88. In this sentence, Douglass clarifies the purpose of his broad interest in historical events. By his own word, he discusses history solely to “make it useful to the present.” As the subject of his speech becomes increasingly clear, so do Douglass’s references to the past take on an increasingly focused role—to elucidate the problem of American slavery.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  89. In this section of the speech, Douglass’s rhetorical tact is twofold. On the one hand, Douglass aims to please his audience, citing the greatness of their founding fathers and deferring to their knowledge of history and politics. On the other hand, Douglass plays the provocateur, preparing his audience for his scathing critique of American slavery. In this passage, Douglass pokes fun at the egotism he sees in Americans and their readiness to boost their own reputation, making this observation without identifying as an American himself. Much of the tension of the speech derives from the way Douglass alternately draws his audience in and holds them at a distance.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  90. In this passage Douglass makes an appeal to both ethos and pathos. By displaying his own lack of understanding and deferring to his audience on the topic of the American Revolution, he succeeds in both garnering the trust of his audience and fanning their sense of pride.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  91. Douglass paints a vibrant auditory landscape in which the music of the fife and drum combines with the ringing of the church bells. This scene is an illustration of the community gathering to commemorate the independence of the United States. On a subtler level, the image represents the unity of church—symbolized by the bells—and state—symbolized by the fife and drum so central to the American military from the Revolutionary War through the 19th century. While the Bill of Rights makes a provision for the separation of church and state, Douglass suggests here that Independence Day is so stirring that all American citizens and institutions can gather to honor their shared freedom.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  92. The word “Mammon” derives from a number of ancient sources—the Latin mammona, the Aramaic mamona, and the Hebrew mamon—all of which mean “money.” In Douglass’s usage, Mammon refers to the demonic spirit of money. Mammon appears in the New Testament of the Bible as the pursuit of wealth in an abstract sense, but in the Middle Ages, Mammon came to be viewed as an actual devil who personifies greed. Douglass suggests that Independence Day is so pervasive that “even Mammon seems to have quitted his grasp on this day.”

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  93. Douglass acknowledges a counterargument in this section, claiming that his opposition believes that slavery is “guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution.” While Article I of the Constitution does contain the three-fifths compromise regarding taxation and representation for the states, Douglass is correct to note that there is no explicit sanction of slavery within the “glorious liberty document.”

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  94. Douglass describes the founding American principles of justice and freedom using the metaphor of a “corner-stone” upon which the superstructure—the part of a building or organization that rises above its foundation—of the American nation is built. In a twist of either irony or coincidence, the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens would deliver the famous “Cornerstone Speech” nine years later in 1861, just weeks before the start of the Civil War. Stephens uses the cornerstone as a metaphor but to an opposite end, claiming that slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy. These similar but opposing uses of the word reveal the clashing values of the Union and Confederacy.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  95. Douglass makes an additional allusion to the actions of the American founders. He specifically praises how the founding fathers often “appeal[...] to heaven to attest their sincerity.” Douglass’s phrase is an interpolation of an important phrase from the Declaration of Independence, in which the founders claim their freedom while “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.”

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  96. In this passage, Douglass alludes to the Declaration of Independence and admires the qualities the American founders displayed therein. In particular, Douglass refers to the way the founders submitted their argument for independence “to a candid world,” allowing other nations and onlookers to observe their fight for freedom.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  97. Here Douglass builds on the nautical metaphors, ultimately weaving together four separate extended metaphors. In the description of the ship being tossed about, Douglass draws on and connects two additional metaphors: the ship’s anchor as the nation’s core principles and the Declaration of Independence as the ring-bolt to the chain of American history. Because anchors are connected to ships by chains, a storm-tossed ship relies on the strength of the anchor chain to remain connected to its anchor and, therefore, stable against the storm. The suggestion of this metaphor is that the United States must rely on the philosophy set forth in the Declaration of Independence if it is to remain anchored by its founding principles.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  98. One of the notable techniques Douglass uses in this speech is extended metaphor, a device in which a single metaphor is drawn upon repeatedly throughout a piece of writing or rhetoric. In this passage, Douglass uses two separate, though related, metaphors he has already used thus far: the United States as a ship at sea and the arrival of threats and troubles as an oncoming storm.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  99. Drawing on a symbol he uses throughout the speech, Douglass describes American history as a chain of which the 4th of July is the “very ring-bolt.” In a chain, the ring-bolt is the very first ring, the one bolted to the anchor point of the entire chain.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  100. The noun “vociferations” refers to loud utterances and outcries. It comes from the Latin root vox, which means “voice.” Douglass uses the word to describe the pleas of the American tories to give up all thought of revolution and remain with the crown.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  101. The word “euphonious” means “pleasing to the ear.” It comes from Greek, combining the prefix eu (“good”) and the root phon (“sound”). Douglass uses it when referring to a less pleasant-sounding nickname for the American tories. Douglass does not cite the specific term, but commonly used terms include “royalists” and “King’s men.”

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  102. During the American Revolution, the “tories” were the American loyalists to the British Crown who resisted the revolutionary actions of the patriots. Douglass cites tories as one notable example of the variety of conservatively minded people who, in any historical era or event, will align themselves with the reigning authority or status quo. In British politics, the Tory party has been the active conservative party since the 17th century.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  103. Douglass makes the bold statement that “oppression makes a wise man mad.” This statement means two things. First, oppression and despotism can aggravate even the most prudent and rational individuals. Second, the forces of oppression motivate the wisest people into action, for the wise recognize when an authority or government needs to be fought against or replaced. In such a case, “mad[ness]” is righteous. Douglass cites the American founders as examples of wise men in whose state of madness “the idea of a total separation of the colonies from the crown was born.”

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  104. In the biblical book of Exodus, Moses led a population of Israelite slaves out of Egypt, across the Red Sea, and into Canaan. The Egyptian Pharaoh and his army chased the Israelites as far as the Red Sea, where the waters, once parted, came crashing together to drown the Egyptians. Douglass chooses to allude to the Egyptian Pharaoh as a point of comparison for the tyranny of the British. The allusion is doubly apt in that the biblical tale subtly mirrors the present political situation in the United States around slavery.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  105. A “sheet anchor” refers to the largest anchor on a ship, usually reserved for emergencies. Here Douglass crafts a compelling metaphor in which the founders of the United States are compared to a ship at sea that has cast down its sheet anchor due to a storm. The more intense the storm—itself a metaphor for the British assaults on the American colonies—the more deeply the anchor grips the seafloor. This image symbolizes the way the founders deepened their convictions as external pressures mounted.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  106. The word “discant” is most commonly used to describe a type of song or melody, but in this case it refers to a critical discourse on a theme. In this context, Douglass uses it to describe those who breezily criticize the oppressive actions of the British in retrospect.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  107. A “dastard” is a person who is both cowardly and malicious. Douglass uses the word to illustrate his point that historical events are easier to judge in retrospect. In the case of the American Revolution, it was simple enough to determine 76 years later that the American colonists were in the right that even a “dastard” could do so. However, at the time of the revolution, it was difficult to determine with confidence which side was right.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  108. The phrase “signs and wonders” is a common motif in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments. It surfaces repeatedly in descriptions of miraculous events. Douglass uses the phrase here in reference to the American Revolution, thereby suggesting its miraculous nature.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  109. Douglass compares Independence Day to the annual Jewish holiday of Passover, which commemorates the liberation of the Israelites from oppression and slavery in Egypt. Douglass goes on to draw further comparisons to the story of the Jewish Exodus.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  110. In this paragraph, Douglass establishes an important rhetorical pattern, which he employs throughout the speech. Douglass assigns the possession of the United States to his audience alone, not to himself. Thus, Douglass describes “your national life” and “your nation” but never “our.” This is a highly purposeful rhetorical move. Such diction asserts that Douglass, as an African American and a former slave, does not participate in the history or culture of the United States. By excluding himself from ownership of the nation, Douglass positions himself as an outsider and makes his remarks from a critical distance.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  111. The Latin noun exordium refers to the beginning of a speech. The word—which combines the roots ex (“out of”) and ordio (“I begin”)—literally means “where I begin from.” Douglass assures his audience that he will not open his speech with a “high sounding” prelude. To the contrary, Douglass’s initial rhetorical tactic is one of humility; in an appeal to ethos, he describes his own nervousness, ill-preparedness, and lack of skill in order to appear more human and thus win the favor of his audience.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  112. Frederick Douglass wrote of his experiences as a slave and of his escape to freedom in his 1845 memoir Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. Douglass’s memoir became a key text in the abolitionist movement and launched Douglass into his role as an orator, reformer, and intellectual.

    — Zachary, Owl Eyes Editor
  113. Douglass makes another critical remark about the current United States government in this line. Similar to his claim about the infallibility of government being “the fashionable idea of this day,” here he claims that American political leaders have failed to learn from England’s example. Douglass is using this as an example of England’s learning from the past. Rather than recognize faults in the system, current officials are blindly supporting the government and ignoring the plights of its people.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  114. Abolitionist and social reformer William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879) created and managed The Liberator, an anti-slavery newspaper, from 1831 to 1865. In addition to his newspaper, Garrison wrote and published essays, poetry, and the preface to the 1845 version of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative in the Life of Frederick Douglass. Garrison’s poem that follows is titled “Triumph of Freedom.”

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  115. Douglass not only uses biblical scripture to illustrate American hypocrisy, but also he draws from the foundational documents of the country itself. This quote is from the Declaration of Independence, and Douglass condemns the beliefs of those who maintain “bondage,” or slavery, despite the actions and words of founders like Jefferson and Washington.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  116. Douglass again uses biblical scripture to point out the hypocrisy found among Christian Americans. Here, he quotes from the Book of Acts 17:26 to point out that, according to scripture, God made all nations of the same blood and that Christians are commanded to love one another. However, Douglass’s tone is accusatory because the social reality is that many claim to be virtuous Christians, but they “glory in [their] hatred” of those of different races.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  117. In 1852, Tsar Nicholas I (1796–1855) ruled the Russian Empire; Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg (1800–1852), the Austrian Empire. These men are named “crowned headed tyrants” because both suppressed revolutionary movements in their respective empires in the middle of the 19th century. As a nation built on revolution, many Americans would have condemned the actions of such foreign governments.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  118. The 19th century saw multiple political parties control Congress and the presidency. In 1852, the two main political parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. However, President Millard Fillmore, the last Whig to hold that office, lost to Democrat Franklin Pierce. Interestingly, Douglass presciently notes that the country has embodied its politics in “two great political parties,” a convention that became the norm with the election of Abraham Lincoln and the establishment of the Republican party to rival the Democrats.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  119. When Douglass says “republican,” he is not referring to a political party; rather, he is referring to the qualities of a republic, a government marked by the power its citizens have to vote. In continuing to point out hypocrisy, Douglass turns to the “flagrantly inconsistent” policies of the mid-19th century. He continued to challenge inconsistencies in legislation, and in his 1866 essay “Reconstruction,” he expressed his belief that consistency in law and application thereof is necessary for a liberated nation.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  120. This unnamed “esteemed friend” is white Baptist minister R. R. Raymond, an active abolitionist, who supported calls to protest the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  121. The passage that follows this line is from the biblical Book of Isaiah 1:13-17. In these lines, God condemns religious sacrifices and offerings, saying that the faithful’s “hands are full of blood.” The last line expresses a desire for the faithful to be better and purer of heart rather than simply performing perfunctory rites. Douglass uses this passage to condemn the actions of Christian hypocrites, which are “an abomination in the sight of God” and demand that they “cease to do evil, learn to do well,” and to that end abolish the institution of slavery.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  122. The noun “ecclesiastics” is synonymous with “clergyman” and refers to a member of a church clergy ordained to perform services or pastoral functions.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  123. This simile directly compares slaves to horses, sheep, and pigs, which serves the purpose of illustrating how they were viewed by slave traders: as domestic beasts to be purchased and used.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  124. As Douglass notes, this American slave trader maintained an office in Baltimore. In addition to buying and selling slaves, he gained notoriety for selling Douglass’s aunt.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  125. In 1808, the United States banned international slave trading. However, as Douglass notes, the institution of internal slave trading continued to be profitable. As a popular shipping port for cotton, the city of New Orleans also served as one of the main locations where slaves were bought and sold, and families divided.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  126. Douglass uses auditory and kinesthetic imagery in this passage to convey the emotion of the scene. Words like “snap,” “clank,” and “rattles,” evoke a sensory response with their rich sounds. The auditory imagery continues with “your ears are saluted with a scream,” a sound which has “torn its way into the centre of your soul!”—an example of kinesthetic imagery, in which an internal response is evoked. Since Douglass’s aim in this paragraph is to have his audience live through the slaves’ experience, imagery serves a valuable purpose in conveying how others feel.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  127. From this line through the end of the paragraph, Douglass employs a series of imperatives: mark, hear, cast, see, follow, attend, and tell. Imperatives serve as commands, and so Douglass uses them to add power to his observations. This serves as an appeal to pathos, as Douglass’s narrative construction forces the audience to live through the experience he describes.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  128. In an effort to illustrate how slaves are dehumanized, Douglass employs a metaphor here. He says that slaves are food for the fields and the mills, which reduces them to the role of fuel for industry, revealing the role that many ascribed to slave labor. Such a metaphor is accessible to the audience and powerfully conveys Douglass’s emotional reaction to the situation.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  129. Douglass refers to a movement in the 19th century that many–mostly whites–saw as a solution to the issues presented by freed slaves: job competition, housing, and miscegenation. This was known as the Back-to-Africa movement, and support for it grew after Charles Mercer founded the American Colonization Society (ACS) in 1816, whose members included philanthropists, abolitionists, and slave owners. James Monroe was a notable member, and the capital of Liberia, a nation that began as a settlement for the ACS’s efforts, is named after him: Monrovia.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  130. The noun “despotism” refers to the rule of an absolute monarch or authority. In such systems, the despot possesses complete power over the citizenry and abuses the power of the state for personal gain. In his 1866 speech “Reconstruction,” Douglass uses this term extensively. He advocates for a consistent federal doctrine but cautions against the abuses of power that come with despotic governments.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  131. Having earlier stated the subject of his speech and his perspective on it, Douglass now answers his own rhetorical question. For freed blacks and slaves, the fourth of July is not a day of independence; rather, it is a day that highlights the hypocrisy, injustices, and cruelty of a nation that claims that “all men are created equal.” This serves as Douglass’s main argument in the essay, and the sections that follow all provide supporting evidence.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  132. Douglass understates his own capacity for rhetorical effect at the beginning of this passage only to demonstrate through effective diction and imagery that he does possess the necessary oratory skills to inspire an audience to action. The list that follows from “fiery stream” includes examples of auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile imagery. The cadence of the list adds cumulative rhetorical power.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  133. This line conveys Douglass’s frustration with the current political system. Proponents of slavery are so set in their beliefs that they will not listen to logical arguments. Douglass suggests that the only tool left is to use “scorching irony” to illustrate the hypocrisy of their beliefs and actions. Doing so will raise the nation’s ire and desire to change the system for the better.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  134. The verb “to flay” refers to the action of removing strips or portion of the skin. Similar to the verb “to whip,” it refers to the practice by which slave owners abused and punished their slaves with whips, lashes, or other thin instruments.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  135. Rather than beginning the speech with a clear statement of purpose, Douglass celebrates the accomplishments of the founding fathers by generally keeping himself separate from his audience. This allows him to acknowledge the significance of the holiday, apply appropriate criticisms, and build the foundation for the main point of his speech.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  136. Douglass employs a biblical allusion to Psalm 137 to emphasize the power of slavery’s injustice on his thoughts. This popular psalm is a regular part of many Judeo-Christian liturgies, and it emphasizes the commitment the faithful have to their God, going so far as to invoke punishment on the self should they fail to remember. For Douglass, since he cannot forget the “mournful wail of millions” of slaves, he uses the biblical allusion to make the sentiment accessible to his audience.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  137. This rhetorical question suggests that the passion of “the righteous” has been memorialized among the dead in the form of tombs and sepulchres—a structure made for interring the deceased. Douglass continues his comparison of contemporary Americans to the Jews who have “long lost Abraham's faith and spirit.” Rather than live up to the examples of the nation’s founders, Douglass criticizes his contemporaries for their lack of virtue.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  138. The noun “indolence” refers to an inclination towards laziness, a desire for ease, and an avoidance of trouble. Here, Douglass uses the word to emphasize how the current generation has no right to live a life of ease after all of the efforts and sacrifices their forerunners have made.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  139. In this version of the speech, section titles are included for thematic breaks in subject matter. Douglass did not speak these titles aloud to his audience; they were added in later publications.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  140. In his 1866 essay “Reconstruction,” Douglass condemns the political skirmishing taking place in Washington and declares that “the occasion demands statesmanship.” Here, Douglass praises the founders’ statesmanship because they were able to look beyond their own concerns and envision best course for the country in the long term. In Douglass’s view, effective politicians and policies are long-term, consistent, and serve the interests of the entire citizenry.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  141. Note that Douglass includes the adverb “intelligently” in stating that it is admirable to die for one’s country. This qualifies the claim, and while it remains subjective, Douglass suggests that having well-reasoned rationales for actions confers virtue and respect on those who act, whereas those who blindly sacrifice themselves ought to be less revered. For Douglass, intelligence meant questioning the status quo and criticizing those who refused to find fault with their government.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  142. In this paragraph, Douglass recalls the simple beginnings of the American nation: a small, scattered population with a limited military. By ordering and disciplining “steam nor lightning,” Douglass refers to the advent of industrialization in the early 19th century, which brought about new technologies such as steam locomotives and electrical lighting.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  143. Douglass makes a calculated pathos appeal to the audience in this passage. The adjectives “simple, dignified, and sublime” all have positive connotations, and by using them, Douglass appeals to the pride and patriotism of his crowd.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  144. Within this extended metaphor, Douglass adds power to his ideas by employing visual, auditory, and tactile imagery, which he achieves through the use of adjectives like “dark, flinty, and storm-tossed” and verbs like “drawn,” “broken,” “cling,” and “spar.”

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  145. Regarding the Declaration of Independence, Douglass calls on his audience to support its principles in any and all situations. This is a calculated rhetorical move. In invoking the declaration, Douglass subtly reminds his audience of its key phrase: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” In so doing, he makes a logos appeal to provide a logical foundation for the his criticism of the hypocrisy facing the nation.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  146. Douglass quotes from the Lee Resolution, which was written a few days prior to the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson includes most of this passage in the conclusion of the declaration, as it states in the clearest terms the severing of ties between the American colonies and Great Britain.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  147. Douglass engages in wordplay in this passage by invoking another meaning of the noun “change.” By casting change in terms of money, as in “pocket change,” he notes the unwillingness of many to support social and political change—unless it provides financial incentive for them.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  148. Notably, this is the first time that Douglass has used the inclusive pronoun “we.” By leveling his criticism at the current government, Douglass positions himself favorably in the eyes of his audience, who likely approved of such comments. This allows a moment for Douglass and the audience to engage in a moment of shared feeling, marking an ethos appeal that makes Douglass more trustworthy.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  149. By “unexceptionable,” Douglass means that the behavior of the founders was done so appropriately that no one could object or criticize their methods. However, he follows this by saying that despite such methods, they failed to realize their objectives.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  150. Douglass states that the fashionable idea of “this day” (the 1850s) is that governments are infallible. Since he then goes on to say that the founders “presumed to differ” in their view of governance, this line ought to be read as contrarian: Douglass is criticizing the current attitude that the government is infallible. Just as the founders did, he believes that no governments are beyond criticism and that citizens must always be prepared to “differ” from the actions of the state.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  151. The noun “prerogative” refers to a special power or privilege that one may have over another. For example, in the context of the American colonies, Great Britain’s King George III exercised his prerogatives—his rights as king—by levying taxes on the American colonies.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  152. While Douglass has referred to the United States as a “she,” he chooses to employ the masculine “fatherland” in reference to Great Britain. While “motherland” and “fatherland” are typically interchangeable, Douglass crafts a father-son relationship between Britain and the American colonies—likely for coherence with the “founding fathers” who declared independence from Great Britain. This relationship persists as a theme throughout his speech, with the United States’ founders taking the role of parent in the nation’s new father-child relationship.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  153. Great Britain maintained colonies in North America for nearly two-hundred years. The predominant culture of the American colonies was British, and the relationship between Great Britain and the colonies convivial for much of the time. Douglass’s choice of the nation being “under” the rule of Great Britain emphasizes Britain’s subjugation of the colonies—an imbalance in power that led to the colonies’ declaring independence.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  154. Douglass employs an extended metaphor at the end of this paragraph to compare the future of the American nation to a “great stream.” He notes that great streams cannot change course easily, their paths having been worn deep over time. While they may “rise in wrath and fury,” eventually they will “dry up, and leave nothing behind.” For Douglass, the “great streams” represents the fates of older nations. Thus this metaphor serves as a statement of optimism regarding the future of the United States, a nation whose stream is young and shallow enough to alter its course.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  155. Douglass refers to America as a “she”—a feminine pronoun—rather than an “it,” which is more conventional for the names of countries today. Douglass’s pronoun use reflects conventions at the time, when many people referred to their nations as their “motherland.”

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  156. While advising optimism in America’s youth, Douglass notes that “the eye of the reformer” sees anger and injustice. The mid-19th century was notable not only for the Abolition movement, of which Douglass was a part, but also the Women’s Rights movement, which many consider to have begun at the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, where Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered her “Declaration of Sentiments.” Douglass was also in attendance and a fervent supporter who signed Stanton’s declaration after it was delivered.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  157. Despite the hope that the young country has, Douglass notes that problems still affect the nation, which he addresses thoroughly later in the speech. While slavery had been a contentious issue since the country’s founding, the visual imagery of “dark clouds which lower above the horizon” speaks to the growing political instability between the free and slave-owning states, which would culminate in 1861 with the outbreak of the Civil War.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor
  158. The United States of America formally declared itself a nation on July 4, 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Douglass reminds his audience of the age of the nation, which he considers not only young but also fortunate, as young nations can more easily grow and change.

    — Wesley, Owl Eyes Editor