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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Douglass makes a Biblical reference to Babylon, which, according to the Bible, was destroyed by God because of Babylonians' immoral behavior.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The noun “ecclesiastics” is synonymous with “clergyman” and refers to a member of a church clergy ordained to perform services or pastoral functions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.