Palfi 1

Lidia Palfi

Professor Aleksandra Izgarjan

19th Century American Literature

April 15, 2011

Frederick Douglass’ “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”: Narrative Techniques

1. Introduction and Historical Context

Frederick Douglass is seen as one of the most important abolitionist orators of the 19 th

century, and his speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” is by many considered to

be his most striking (Duffy and Besel 5). In 1852 Douglass was invited by the Rochester

Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society to deliver a 4th of July speech (Duffy and Besel 7; Terrill 217).

It was a part of the 1852 Independence Day Celebration at Corinthian Hall in Rochester, New

York, but delivered on the 5th of July for reasons still disputed1. In this paper I will try to

explain what Douglass wanted to say, how he managed to achieve it and what effect his 4 th of

July oration had on the audience.

4th of July celebrations and orations were a common practice and very important in the

19th century. They served to form a collective national consciousness and the American

national identity. These speeches were called epideistic since they had a ceremonial function.

Douglass’ 4th of July oration belongs to the epideistic genre, but only partially (Duffy and

Besel 6,7; Deacon 66, 67). His speech serves its purpose while Douglass praises the founding

fathers of the republic. The problem is that the major part of the speech clearly has more than

just a ceremonial function, since he criticises the institution of slavery and American

hipocrisy. I agree with McClure that in order to be able to criticise, Douglass had to solve

some problems (430). Except for the fact that he planned to criticise Americans on the date

when they should be praised, Douglass had more obstacles: the Constitution, his audience

and the fact that he was a slave.

First of all, the Constitution had a great impact on the formation of Douglass’ 4 th of

July speech because the abolitionists of the North were divided depending on their

interpretation of the Constitution. William Lloyd Garrison was a famous abolitionist who

thought that the document was pro-slavery and Douglass shared his opinion until 1851. That

year Douglass publicly broke with Garrison because he believed the document is essentially

1 Terrill provides two sources, one claiming that the oration was delivered on the 5th of July because the 4th fell on Sunday, the other saying that it was so because it was Douglass’ choice (231-232)

Palfi 2

anti-slavery (Duffy and Besel 5; Terrill 218; McClure 428). This is important since Douglass

uses the Constitution in his 4th of July oration as an argument against slavery and as a means

to show his audience that slavery is wrong.

The audience consisted of around 600 women (mostly white) and there were many

who did not share his opinion on the Constitution (Duffy and Besel 7, Terrill 217). Also,

Douglass could not criticise Americans openly and have explicit arguments which would

convince them of their hipocrisy. Douglass knew that his speech would be later published in

the form of pamphlets, so he used the fact that he would have a much wider audience (Duffy

and Besel 8). He knew what he wanted and knew how he had to address his audience to get

it. This is evident in the lines “could I reach the nation’s ear […] We need the storm, the

whirlwind, and the earthquake […] the conscience of the nation must be roused” (Douglass

20).

Apart from having to deal with the problem of the Constitution and his audience,

Douglass also needed to think about how to use his past and present state to say what he

wanted. Being an ex-slave and an orator, people often doubted his identity. He was given

advice about what his orations should be like and what he was allowed to say (Deacon 76-

77). He was told to use simple words so that his identity as a former slave would be credible,

but he used them so that the audience could understand him more easily. Also, at the first

glance, it may look like the whole speech is quite simple when it comes to style. The truth is,

Douglass carefully chose his words2 and used different figures of speech. He also divided the

speech into two parts: in the first fulfilling his task to give a 4 th of July speech, in the second

saying what he wanted. In this way, he was able to convey his message without offending

anyone or looking as if he had not been following instructions.

2. The First Part

In the first part of the speech, Douglass praises the Founding Fathers – it is actually what the

whole speech should have been about. During the whole first part, however, Douglass already

implies what will follow.

He begins the first part according to the custom of that time. Douglass is being

modest, saying: “Should I seem at ease, my appearance would much misrepresent me. The

little experience I have had in addressing public meetings, in country schoolhouses, avails me

nothing on the present occasion”(3). As Terril claims, there would be nothing strange about

2 It has been quoted in several sources that Douglass spent three weeks preparing his speech (Duffy and Besel 8; Terril 221)

Palfi 3

that if Douglass’ later style did not show elaborate metaphors and if he hadn’t spent much

more time preparing the speech than he mentioned (220). In this way, his humble

introduction becomes ironic.

After the modest introduction, Douglass compares the Independence Day to the

Passover. By making a Biblical reference, he tries to touch the audience’s religious beliefs

(McClure 433). The Jewish people suffered under the Pharaoh, the Colonists suffered under

the rule of the British, and Douglass wants his audience to realize that the slaves suffer so

now under the free people of America. Douglass already distances himself from the audience,

using the words “you” and “your” when refering to Independance Day celebrations. He wants

to imply that he and the audience do not have the same status – he cannot join them in their

celebration of liberty because he does not share it. Douglass avoids being too harsh here by

saying that the nation is still young and that there is still hope. All he wants is to make the

audience think about what he is saying - if there is hope in the future, it means something is

wrong in the present. In a way, Douglass warns them by using the river metaphor. I agree

with Duffy and Besel who say it is probably the most important metaphor of the speech, since

by using it, Douglass already in the beginning shows what his speech will be about (8). As

the river “may sometimes rise in quiet and stately majesty ... [or] in wrath and fury … [or] it

may dry up”, so can a nation be prosperous, disturbed by risings and revolutions or

completely destroyed (Douglass 5).

At this point, Douglass describes the antebelum period. Anamnesis, or recollection,

was often used in these kind of speeches to shape historical memory (Duffy 6). As this is not

a typical epideistic speech, Douglass uses it to make the audience see the past in a different

light and therefore stimulate changes in the present. Douglass does not spare words of praise

for the fathers of the country. The difference is that he represents them as big men because

they were the oppressed and had the courage and ability to fight against the oppressors. Of

course, it meant that their actions were not approved by the oppressors and by those who

Douglass calls “the timid and the prudent” (8). He continues:

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! (Douglass 8)

Palfi 4

What Douglass is trying to do is make a parallel between the past and present

situation, a parallel between the founding fathers and slaves. Their fathers were oppressed by

the British Empire, while the slaves are oppressed by the whites. He implies that the best

thing to do is not always approved by the majority and does not always follow strict rules

(Terrill 223). By saying “It would, certainly, prove nothing, as to what part I might have

taken, had I lived during the great controversy of 1776”, Douglass wants the audience to

think about which side they would have taken (Douglass 6). Choosing the founding fathers

and keeping the parallel in mind, the audience is somehow compelled to be on the side of the

slaves.

Douglass further explains that the ideas which the founding fathers followed are all

contained in the Declaration of Independance. He speaks about how people should still

respect those principles if they want to follow their fathers’ example. Of course, Douglass

mentions this implicitly, by using metaphors. The ship he mentions twice refers to the

principles their fathers followed and to the country they have created, while the sea and the

storm stand for the opressors and the dangers which would ensue if they do not respect the

same principles: “Cling to this day – cling to it and its principles, with the grasp of a storm-

tossed mariner to a spar at midnight” (Douglass 9).

The first part of the speech ends by a clear distinction between Douglass and his

audience. He says “That is a branch of knowledge in which you feel, perhaps, a much deeper

interest than your speaker” also trying to prepare the audience for the second part of his

speech, where he explains why he does not have a “deeper interest” in the subject (Douglass

12).

3. The Second Part

The distinction between the first and the second part is clear because Douglass shifts from the

past into the present. This is where his praise ends and the part which represents his ideas

starts.

Douglass uses Biblical alusions again. First he mentions how Jacob’s children boasted

about having Abraham as their father “when they had long lost Abraham’s faith and spirit”

(13-14). He continues with: “Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this

country to-day?”, aluding to the people of his time who do not follow Washington’s ideas but

still celebrate the principles he fought for (Douglass 14; McClure 235). I think it is important

to mention that Douglass is still being careful here so as not to openly address the present

Palfi 5

audience and make them equal with the people he is now criticising. At this point, it is

possible for them to think that he is still refering to the slave-holders in the South.

Apart from comparisons, Douglass also uses irony. The whole second part can be

treated as ironic on many levels. First of all, on the day when Americans and their principles

should be celabrated, Douglass critises them. Actually, the larger part of the speech is

dedicated to his main subject – slavery. It is further ironic since Douglass, a former slave, has

been invited to celebrate and talk of liberty. This is best shown by the following paragraph,

where Douglass ironically addresses his audience as “[f]ellow-citizens”:

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? (14)

Douglass then uses a set of contrasts to compare their liberty, metaphorically

represented as light, to his (former) slavery: “The sunlight that brought life” and “joyous

anthems” are contrasted to “stripes and death” and “inhuman mockery”, as the way “a man in

fetters” is in opposition to “the grand illuminated temple of liberty”. He concludes with:

“This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn” (Douglass 15).

In this way, Douglass gradually moves towards the actual subject of his speech. The

Biblical alusion that follows is a part of the Psalm 137. As the Jewish people in exile could

not forget Jerusalem, so cannot Douglass forget the sufferings of slaves. In this way he

clearly announces what he is going to talk about: “My subject, then fellow-citizens, is

AMERICAN SLAVERY” (Douglass 16). By saying “America is false to the past, false to the

present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future”, Douglass clearly criticises the

people’s hypocrisy (Douglass 16). On the other hand, Terrill emphasises Douglass’ ironic

claim that he would speak clearly ”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” (Douglass 17; Terrill

224). In other words, Douglass uses this technique to speak and not to speak at the same time.

Douglass addresses his audience for the first time when saying that some of them

might think that he should persuade them with arguments rather than blame them. He could

not have openly given them arguments or talked in favour of the black slaves so he solves the

problem by using paralipsis (Duffy and Besel 9). First he tells the audience “where all is plain

there is nothing to be argued”, but then he dedicates a number of paragraphs to arguments

Palfi 6

against slavery (Douglass 17). For example, the laws which punish the blacks for

disobediance and forbid them to learn to read and write all prove that slaves are people; the

people of America have already declared that each man is entitled to liberty in the

Declaration of Independence; slavery cannot be divine because it is blasphemy to claim so.

Douglass further uses strong irony in order to be able to continue with his attack: “O! had I

the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream biting

ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke” (Douglass 20). In the

following parts of the speech, Douglass shows that he does have the ability.

He finally answers the question from the title of this speech – the 4 th of July is, for a

slave, “a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and

cruelty to which he is a constant victim” (Douglass 20). America is full of hipocrisy, and for

this, Douglass gives more detailed proof. The foreign and what Douglass calls “internal”

slave trades are being contrasted because they are seen as two different things by the

Americans, while essentially being the same (Douglass 21). Hypocritically, the foreign slave

trade is considered illegal, while internal slave trade is accepted all over the country. Trying

to convince the audience that it is something happening at this very moment, Douglass

describes how the process of selling a slave looks like. Duffy, Besel and Terrill point out that

Douglass’ description brings the sufferings of the slaves before the audience’s eyes (Duffy

and Besel 9-10; Terrill 224-225). Douglass tries to make the audience have a sensory

experience, both auditory and visual. He achieves this by using special words:

Behold … you will see … I will show you … Mark the sad

procession … Cast one glance … upon that young mother …

her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms …

you hear a quick snap, like a 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

center of your soul! ... Attend the auction … See this drove sold

and separated forever; and never forget the deep, sad sobs that

arose from that scattered multitude. (Douglass 22-23)

Douglass continues with a claim to have witnessed everything. By mentioning the mistress

from his childhood who sympathized with the sufferings of the slaves, he wants to imply that

he wishes his audience to do the same. He adresses them through citing the beginning lines of

John Greenleaf Whittier’s poem “Stanzas for the Times” to remind them again of the

inconsistencies they are facing every day.

Palfi 7

Up to this point, all the criticism seemed to be aimed at the South. By introducing the

Fugitive Slace Act issue, Douglass aims at saying that people in the North are as bad as those

in the South for letting such a law exist. He also shows this through the word choice – he

criticises “Your lawmakers … Your President, your Secretary of State, your lords, nobles”

(Douglass 25). Their hypocrisy is shown through irony when he calls the country “your free

and glorious country … tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian

America” (Douglass 26).

According to the Christian doctrines, slavery is a sin against God. Since the American

Church supported the Fugitive Law by not condemning it, Douglass also bitterly criticises the

clergy and the believers. Their religion has been cut down to something which has a merely

ceremonial function. The fact that both the Churches in the South and the North do nothing

when it comes to this law is even made worse because the Church does have the power to

stop slavery. In contrast to the American Church, and to show that the Church is capable of

putting an end to it, Douglass gives the example of the Church of England. He then clearly

declares: “Americans! Your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are

flagrantly inconsistent” (Douglass 32). This inconsistency and hypocrisy can be stopped

when the Church decides to be on the side of slaves. After openly giving examples of these

inconsistencies, he finishes his attack with a warning. The reptile he mentions is a metaphor

which stands for slavery and their support of it. Douglass tries to show them that it is wrong

by telling them that it is a danger big enough to destroy their country.

In the end, Douglass brings up the question of the Constitution. He knows that some

people in the audience might neglect everything he has just said claiming that slavery was

enabled by the Constitution. He gives his own view of it saying that the words “slave” and

“slavery” are not mentioned in it (Douglass 36). Therefore, he regards it as an anti-slavery

document. On the other hand, he acknowledges that some might interpret it as pro-slavery.

The Constitution is itself inconsistent and that is why it can be interpreted in different ways.

Because of this, Douglass thinks that everyone should form an opinion about it and fight for

it.

In his conclusion, Douglass repeats that he has hope. He mostly relies his hope on the

Declaration of Independence and on the developments in different sciences which would

make people aware of the atrocities made in America. Although this might sound strange,

Douglass had a clear point. All the hypocrisy he mentioned could be excused by the nation’s

ignorance. Since they live in a time when constant changes and discoveries are happening,

and when knowledge is rapidly being spread, that is no longer possible. By calling his

Palfi 8

audience to join him in reciting Garrison’s poem, Douglass invites them to take action

because they can no longer remain silent (Terrill 227).

4. Summary

Terril mentions that an ironist has to remain quiet and leave his audience to judge by itself

(220-221, 225). I think Douglass succeeded in doing that. Throughout his speech, he never

tells the audience to do or believe in this or that. Douglass keeps on implying or laying facts

before them. Deacon notes that we can see the influence of the Romantic Age on Douglass in

his wish to appeal to emotions (71). He tries to touch people’s feelings, primarily sympathy

and their religious belief. In this way, they are made to feel for the sufferings of slaves, and to

believe that change is possible for the benefit of both the slaves and them. After Douglass’

conclusion, the audience is left with a sense of hope, optimism, but also shame and

responsibility (Deacon 70). There is hope for change, but changes can be aroused precisely

by the people whom Douglass is addressing.

As far as his delivery is concerned, there are many recorded thoughts about it. For

example, J. M. Gregory claimed that Douglass was so successful because he spoke from his

heart. He says it is something that cannot be faked, and somehow, his audience felt that

Douglass was sincere (129). An example can be found in this speech as well, when Douglass

says he truly sympathises with the slaves. Deacon quotes that Benjamin Quarles noticed

Douglass had a “euphonius voice“ and says that he knew “the finer points of vocalization

including varying the cadence of sentences, repeating key words naturally and distinctly, and

avoiding monotony” (71-72). A reporter of an abolitionist newspaper also claimed that: “It

was not what you would call eloquence or oratory. It was sterner, darker, deeper than these. It

was the volcanic outbreak of human nature, long pent up in slavery and at last bursting its

imprisonment” (qtd. Deacon 76). Today, we are left with no other option but to believe the

people who witnessed his speeches. It is probable that because of that, we cannot fully

understand Douglass’ popularity. As Gregory said: “to be fully appreciated, Mr. Douglass

must be seen and heard” (129).

Palfi 9

Works Cited

Deacon, Andrea. “Navigating “The Storm, the Whirlwind, and the Earthquake”:

Re-Assessing Frederick Douglass, the Orator” Rocky Mountain Review of Language and

Literature 57.1 (2003): 65-81. JSTOR. PDF file.

Douglass, Frederick. “What to the Slave is The Fourth of July?”. Corinthian Hall, Rochester,

New York: Lee, Mann & CO. American Building, 1852. PDF file.

Duffy, Bernard K. and Besel, Richard D. “Recollection, Regret, and Foreboding in Frederick

Douglass’s Fourth of July Orations of 1852 and 1875” Making Connections:

Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity 12.1 (2011): 4-15.

DigitalCommons@CalPoly. PDF file.

Gregory, James M. “Frederick Douglass, the Orator”. Narrative of the Life of Frederick

Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself: Authoritative Text, Contexts, Criticism.

Eds. William L. Andrews, William S. McFeely. New York: Norton, 1997. 127-129. Print.

McClure, Kevin R. “Frederick Douglass’ Use of Comparison in his Fourth of July Oration: A

Textual Criticism” Western Journal of Communication 64.4 (2000): 425-444. Academic

Search Complete. PDF file.

Terrill, Robert E. “Irony, Silence, and Time: Frederick Douglass on the Fifth of July”

Quarterly Journal of Speech 89.3 (2003): 216-234. EBSCO. PDF file.