Clay Rankin
4/4/00
Public Speaking
A Rhetorical Criticism to a section of Frederick Douglass’ speech
“What To the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”
When “the Rochester Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society” asked Frederick Douglass to
speak “in Corinthian Hall on the Fourth of July”, he declined to speak on that particular
day but agreed to do so the following day (McFeely, 172). Barely allowing the American
people a day to wallow in their Independence Day celebrations, Douglass delivered his
scathing Fifth of July speech entitled “What To the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”
Douglass claimed that the democratic ideals of Liberty, Justice, and Equality were onesided, because these rights only extended to the white segment of the population and
excluded the black members of society. During his speech, Douglass exposed the
paradoxical nature of the Fourth of July, because he noted that while the whites
commenced to celebrate their freedom and rights, the blacks continued to be second-class
citizens who faced gross injustices and who were denied basic rights. And so by looking
at the Fourth of July from the perspective of an African American, Douglass made note
of the deep racial divisions in American society that lay beneath the thin covering of
national celebrations like the Fourth of July.
In this paper, a historical analysis will be provided to help understand why
Douglass gave the speech, a descriptive analysis will be used to highlight Douglass’ most
effective rhetorical techniques, a critical perspective will be developed to explain the
descriptive analysis, an evaluation of the speech will be given, and a conclusion will be
drawn.
To help understand why Frederick Douglass gave this speech, we need to
examine the historical context of the time period in which the speech was delivered.
During the era of the 1850’s, America was in the process of undergoing social reform. At
the core of this reform, lay the question of whether slavery was a justifiable institution or
whether it should be outlawed. Those individuals who were advocates of slavery lived in
the South, and they claimed that slave labor was needed to help support and bolster the
growing cotton industry. Claiming that they were no worse than Northerners,
Southerners said that slave labor was similar to the labor that workers in northern
factories had to do. Like the slaves, Southern slave owners claimed that the factory
workers also worked in oppressive conditions where they had to endure long hours of
work in poor conditions (Henretta, Brody, and Dumenil, 341). However, Northerners did
not accept this reason, or any of the many others, that the Southerners gave to support the
institution of slavery.
Perhaps, one of the most motivating political factors that led to Frederick
Douglass to delivering a harsh rebuttal and condemnation of the institution of slavery in
his speech was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 that had just been passed. Under this Act,
American citizens, including Northerners, had to provide slave-catchers and owners with
help if a slave had runaway. The implications of this law were that slaves were no longer
guaranteed their freedom if they escaped up North. Thus to slaves, it appeared as though
there was no longer a differentiation between what the North and South stood for
concerning the issue of slavery (Douglass, xiii-xiv). Along with these new guidelines,
the Fugitive Slave Act also made it easier for Southern slaveholders to reclaim their
runaway slaves, because the new law “required a slaveholder to supply only minimal
proof of ownership before having an alleged runaway returned to him” (Voss, 45).
The significance of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 is that it made Douglass more
adamant and radical when expressing his disapproval towards slavery. Whereas before
he had advocated peaceful means to voice his disapproval, Douglass now believed that
more radical measures were appropriate (Voss, 45). And although he does not advocate
that people should riot or turn to violence, we see that, through the choice of his word
selection in his speech, he is definitely radical and unquestionably harsh with his
condemnation of slavery. To cite one example of this, he says towards the end of his
speech, “It is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and
the earthquake… The conscience of the nation must be roused... The hypocrisy of the
nation must be exposed” (speech, 3). Through this example, we see that he is at, perhaps,
the pinnacle of his anger in the speech, because he metaphorically refers to natural
disasters to accomplish the task of shaking the infrastructure of American beliefs.
Along with understanding the social context of the time period and the Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850, we also need to examine Douglass’ ideas concerning a “multiracial
democracy” to understand why he gave the speech. One of Douglass’ core beliefs was
that “the constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence, ‘gives us a platform
broad enough’ on which to build a multiracial democracy, ‘without regard to color, class,
or clime’” (Stephens, 177). Thus, although the founders wrote the constitution with
regards to white male property owners, Douglass believes that those rights were to be
expanded to others in the future. As Douglass saw it, the constitution “also contains
language and provisions clearly intended to steer the young republic towards more
inclusive employment of its egalitarian ideals” (Stephens, 180). Thus through Douglass’
interpretation, he believed that the rights of the constitution should eventually be given to
all people regardless of their class or social status. With these ideas in mind, we see why
Douglass gave this speech, because he saw the need for advocating the idea of a
multiracial democracy to the people of Rochester New York. And in turn, one of his
possible motivations for delivering this speech might have been to address that a
multiracial democracy was still not in place and that constitutional rights were still not
granted to the blacks of the nation.
Finally, along with understanding the social context of the time period, the
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the idea of a multiracial democracy, it is helpful to look at
how Douglass’ audience viewed him as well as how they reacted to his speech. Douglass
presented this speech in Rochester in Corinthian Hall to a crowd that numbered between
500-600 people (Blassingame, 359). And in addition, the crowd had great respect for
him as an orator, because he was considered to be the most prominent black American of
the time (Douglass, xiii). Thus, after finishing his oration, Douglass received “ ‘a
universal burst of applause’” (Blassingame, 359). This in part can be explained because
they respected him and his ideas, and also because they too shared antislavery views
(McFeely, 172).
Along with understanding the historical context of the speech, a descriptive
analysis is helpful to examine the speech itself. For example, when looking at the style of
Douglass’ speech, we want to see that “the language reflects the rhetor’s role” (Campbell
and Burkholder, 30). And we see this throughout Douglass’ speech, because his usage of
language reflects his role as being one who speaks against the institution of slavery and
who advocates equality. One example of this is when he says, “What to the American
slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days
of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim” (speech, 3).
Here we see that he juxtaposes the white meaning of the Fourth of July with what it
means to the blacks. And he says, that while this is a day for the whites to celebrate, this
is also a day for the blacks to mourn, because they are reminded that they are secondclass citizens who are not granted their constitutional rights. Also, from this statement
we are provided with, and reminded of, Douglass’ condemnation of slavery and his call
for equality. Douglass does not use soft or friendly language. Rather, by delivering a
diatribe towards the nation’s Independence Day and by using strong words like
“injustice” and “cruelty,” we see that those words, and his statement as a whole, reflect
his role as being a leading abolitionist as well as an adamant proponent for equality. And
at the same time, it allows us to see that he is one who is not afraid to expose the
injustices in American society.
Along with demonstrating that style involves how language reflects the rhetor’s
role, we also see that the style of Douglass’ speech reflects specific techniques of
rhetoric. One specific technique that he incorporates into several areas of his speech is
the usage of the antithesis. This rhetorical technique is where the rhetor places parts of a
sentence against one another to reveal contrasting ideas. For example in his speech,
Douglass says, “Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful
wail of millions…” (speech, 2). This is an example of an antithesis because Douglass is
contrasting the two opposing emotions that whites and blacks feel on the Fourth of July.
Specifically, he says that while the whites are joyous, the blacks mourn. Another
example of an antithesis that he provides is when he says, “Whether we turn to the
declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present…” (speech, 2). Again, we
see here that he is contrasting two different ideas, because he is placing two different time
periods, the past and present, against one another in the same sentence.
Along with the usage of the antithesis, Douglass also uses the specific technique
of enthymemes in his speech. An enthymeme is where you are “presenting an argument
in such a way that audience members participate in its creation”(Campbell and
Burkholder, 30). In other words, the goal of an enthymeme is to allow the audience to
finish your argument for you. One example of this in Douglass’ speech is where he says,
“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” (speech, 2). This is an example of an
enthymeme because Douglass is allowing the audience to finish his argument and ask
themselves the questions of whether or not they are prejudice and slaveholders at heart.
And he says to them that if they are not, then they should agree with what he is saying.
Thus his technique of using an enthymeme is an effective speech strategy, because he is
allowing the audience to go through the thought process for themselves and finish what
he is going to say in their own heads.
Besides including antitheses and enthymemes in his speech, Douglass also uses
vivid imagery throughout his speech. Because this is one of the most abundant
techniques that he uses in his speech, Douglass is able, through the usage of his words, to
create clear mental images in the minds of the listeners and readers so that they are able
to both hear and visualize his arguments. An example of this vivid imagery is when he
refers to “the chains of servitude” (speech, 2). Here Douglass uses the adjective “chains”
to describe the impact that servitude has on the lives of slaves. By using that particular
adjective, he is inferring that they are bound and unable to escape from their master’s
authority, and that they are at his complete mercy. Thus, the listeners and readers of the
speech are able to envision a slave unable to break away or move from his owner’s
control. Another example of his usage of imagery is when he says, “to beat them with
sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash…” (speech, 3). And by using these descriptive
adjectives, we are able to paint a horrifyingly vivid image in our minds with regards to
the cruelties that slaves endured.
Finally, along with using antitheses, enthymemes, and vivid imagery, Douglass
also incorporates the technique of using metaphors in his oration. An example of this is
when he says, “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that
slavery is wrong for him” (speech, 3). By using the metaphor of a “canopy of heaven,”
Douglass is stating that there is not a man on earth that does not know that the institution
of slavery is wrong. So in that sense, he is also using the “canopy of heaven” to infer that
there are universal morals held by all individuals, and that the practice of slavery violates
those morals.
Along with looking at style of the speech, it is also an important part of the
descriptive analysis to show that Douglass infers that he and other blacks are deprived of
basic constitutional rights. In the second sentence of the section of the speech, Douglass
asks his audience, “What have I or those I represent to do with your national
independence?” (speech, 1). Thus, we see that from the beginning of his oration,
Douglass is making it clear that he, and his fellow black countrymen, have nothing to do
with the Fourth of July celebrations, because they are deprived of the constitutional rights
that the whites have. And a little later in the speech he says, “I say it with a sad sense of
disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary.
Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us” (speech, 2).
Through this statement, Douglass is commenting that because neither he nor other blacks
share in the rights of liberty and justice, they can not consider themselves to be a part of
the Fourth of July celebrations. To further illustrate that he and other blacks are deprived
of their rights he says that they are denied the rights of humanity and liberty as well as
those granted to them by the Constitution and the Bible (speech, 2). And to emphasize
this point concerning their depravation of rights he says, “What to the American slave is
your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the
year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim” (speech, 3).
Finally besides looking at style of the speech and examining how blacks were
deprived of their rights, the descriptive analysis also shows how Douglass builds a
common ground that all of his listeners can stand on. He does so by claiming that his
audience already knows that everyone is entitled to basic rights such as liberty. And he
illustrates this point when he says, “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”
(speech, 3). Through this statement we see that he is explaining to his audience that he
does not need to spend his time demonstrating that all Americans are entitled to basic
rights. And, when he says that they have already declared it, we can infer that he is
referring back to the American Revolution when the colonies declared their independence
from Britain in order to obtain their own freedom and liberties. With this in mind, he
infers that the idea of liberty should not be new or unclear to American citizens, because
after all, they fought the Revolution to gain this right.
Along with providing a historical analysis and descriptive analysis of Douglass’
speech, a critical perspective will be developed to explain the descriptive analysis. I
decided to illustrate how Douglass incorporated style, the feeling of deprivation, and
commonality in his speech, because these were the three major aspects of the speech that
were most apparent and emphasized. Douglass incorporates a myriad of different
stylistic techniques into his speech, and the reader is bombarded with many examples of
how language reflects his role as a rhetor. Not only that, but he provides the reader with
multiple examples of antitheses, enthymemes, vivid imagery, and metaphors throughout
his oration. Also, the biggest point that he makes in his speech is that he and other blacks
are denied their basic rights. More importantly, although not mentioned, as often, is his
belief that the blacks, like the whites, are entitled to and should not be deprived of basic
rights.
The first critical perspective I used was that of style portion of the rationalistic
approach. In this approach, it is asks, “How does the language reflect the rhetor’s role?”
(Campbell and Burkholder, 30). In addition it asks if there were any specific techniques,
such as enthymemes, antitheses, imagery, or metaphors, used to enhance the speech. As
the text notes, “style critics sometimes describe how rhetors use language to make the
discourse aesthetically pleasing to audiences…” (Campbell and Burkholder, 81). In other
words, this aspect of the rationalistic approach looks to see not only how the orator used
language to reflect his own role and position, but also to see how the speaker made the
speech pleasing to the listeners and or readers. And so in Douglass’ speech, we see that
he used all of these aspects to not only increase his credibility but to also provide an
aesthetically pleasing speech to his audience. Thus, when looking at the audience’s
reaction to the speech, we might infer that part of their applause resulted from them being
pleased by the eloquence of his speech.
Along with using the style segment of the rationalistic approach, I also used the
social movement section of the psychosocial approach. In this approach, one of the key
aspects is that the “individuals must experience relative deprivation; that is, they must see
themselves deprived in relation to others who become a reference group or a basis for
comparison” (Campbell and Burkholder, 87). This means that individuals must feel that
they are lacking something when comparing themselves to others around them. And so
in Douglass’ speech, we see that he creates this feeling of deprivation, because he notes
that blacks were unable to have rights of liberty and equality. Also with regards to this
perspective, “what individuals perceive as unmet needs is affected by the social and
political climate of the culture in which they live” (Campbell and Burkholder, 88). And
so with regards to the political and social climate of the 1850’s, it is important to
understand the significance of the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Due to the
passing of this law, blacks no longer felt that they could retreat to the north. More
importantly, they felt as though their freedom was in jeopardy, because now they faced
the possibilities of northerners turning them back over to their owners. Thus their need
and agency for liberty and freedom probably grew even more. And so in relation to
Douglass’ speech, we hear Douglas calling for these rights in front of the people of
Rochester.
Finally, besides using the style part of the rationalistic approach and social
movement section of the psychosocial approach, I also used the identification and
consubstantiality aspects of the dramatistic approach. Through this approach, a common
ground is looked for. Not only that, “But the sheer fact of common experience means
little unless that commonality is recognized and acknowledged, a process that occurs
through symbols, usually language” (Campbell and Burkholder, 93). Thus Douglass
achieved this in his speech, because he identified that all Americans are entitled to liberty
and equality. Not only that, but through his usage of language he answered the question
out loud by claiming that everyone knew that people were entitled to liberty. And, as
Stephens points out in his critique of Douglass’ speech, Douglass believed that the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence allowed for a multiracial democracy where
people of all colors and race would receive equal rights (Stephens, 177). And so in
essence, Stephens is pointing out that Douglass’ interpretation of these two documents
called for a commonality of rights to exist between all people.
Finally, along with giving a historical analysis, descriptive analysis and a critical
perspective, an evaluation of the speech will be made. Concerning the style segment of
the rationalistic approach and the deprivation section of the psychosocial approach, I
believe that Douglass did a good job and fulfilled the necessary requirements of those
approaches. As is noted in the Campbell and Burkholder text, both the rationalistic and
psychosocial perspectives deal with the audience’s reactions to the speech and whether or
not the rhetor successfully managed to convey his message to his listeners (Campbell and
Burkholder, 111-112). With this in mind, it is important to note that the crowd of over
500 people applauded Douglass at the end of his speech. As it was noted, he was given “
‘a universal burst of applause’” from the immediate audience (Blassingame, 359). Thus,
we can conclude that Douglass effectively delivered his message to the packed crowd
inside Corinthian Hall.
Along with doing a good job with the rhetorical and psychosocial approaches, I
believe that Douglass also accomplished his goal in the dramatistic approach. In this
approach, “critics are more interested in judging the ethics and/or artistry of the means
used to produce those effects” (Campbell and Burkholder, 114). Knowing this, I believe
that Douglass did a very good job in this area, because his speech contained many
examples of well-crafted sentences. For example, Douglass says, “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, then
I will argue with you that the slave is a man!” (speech, 3). Amongst many other
sentences in the speech, the style of this sentence illustrates one example of where
Douglass uses the stylistic techniques of imagery and repetition, to convey his message.
Finally, I would like to use the artistic criterion to evaluate Douglass’ speech.
From a rationalistic standpoint, “discourses are expected to be unified, consistent, and
coherent in structure and to be clear and precise in their use of language or style”
(Campbell and Burkholder, 121). And so with regards to this, Douglass did do a good
job, because he chose his words carefully, he was very clear in his message, and he was
consistent. Echoing his notion concerning the hypocrisy of the Fourth of July, Douglass
says at the end of his speech, “search out every abuse and when you have found the
last…you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy,
America reigns without a rival” (speech, 3-4). Thus this sentence illustrates that his ideas
are very clear and thought out. More importantly, he leaves no questions as to where he
stands with his beliefs. And, he also leaves the listeners with the sounds of strong and
unrelenting condemnation ringing in their ears.
Although from a rationalistic standpoint Douglass did a good artistic job, I do not
believe that he did very well from a psychosocial standpoint. From this perspective, “the
rhetor describes vividly and memorably depicts the satisfaction-what the situation would
be if the plan were adopted or the product purchased” (Campbell and Burkholder, 122).
However, Douglass does not do this in his speech, because he does not infer what the
situation would be like if blacks were to achieve the same rights as the whites. Instead of
leaving his immediate audience with a sense of satisfaction, he ends the speech on a
down note by saying that America is the winner when it comes to demonstrating
hypocrisy. Rather than providing any hope or glint of a promising future, he leaves the
audience to ponder his strong accusations. And instead of implementing a plan, Douglass
neglects to offer any ways to achieve the equality he and other blacks long for.
Although Douglass did not do a very good job from a psychosocial perspective
when evaluating through an artistic lens, Douglass did do a nice job from a dramatistic
perspective. From this perspective, one looks at “assessing the artistry of the rhetorical
act-its strategic use of the available resources in appeal, argument, and language in order
to achieve its ends” (Campbell and Burkholder, 123). In other words, the primary
concern in this approach is to tell how well the rhetor gave his speech by looking
primarily at the language he used (Campbell and Burkholder, 124). So from this
perspective, Douglass did a good job, because he was artistic with the formation of his
sentences, and the majority of those well-constructed sentences helped to emphasize his
own viewpoints. For example he says, “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” (speech, 2). Thus, we see that through his usage of an antithesis and strong
adjectives, he is claiming that the nation’s inability to provide blacks with equal rights is
inexcusable. By doing this, he leaves the audience with the unmistakable impression of
being thoroughly disgusted of America’s present state.
In conclusion, when examining Douglass’ speech, it is important to understand
the historical context in which the speech was given, because it provides reason as to why
he spoke on the issue he did. In other words, due to the social atmosphere of the time, we
see that Douglass thought it was necessary to address the pressing issue of slavery that
confronted the nation at the time. Also, through the descriptive analysis and the critical
perspectives, we are able to examine many of the ways in which he used rhetorical
techniques to craft his effective speech. Finally, by providing an analysis of the speech,
we were able to conclude, that from an artistic perspective, Douglass, overall, gave an
eloquently effective speech.