Rhetorical Analysis of What To The Slave Is The Fourth Of July Speech

1st Response: “What is something you noticed in the speech?”

As I was reading, a section on page 4 caught my attention. In paragraph two,  (“They were … degenerate times.”) Douglass describes the founding fathers, which makes sense, because he has been asked to speak to the president and his fellow citizens on the Fourth of July. It makes total sense that Frederick Douglass would mention these men who were so crucial to establishing the country and earning independence. What amazed me and caught me off guard, was the way Douglass spoke of them. Douglass honored these men. Despite the racist ideals these men held regarding race and slavery, Douglass spoke highly of them. He did not say a single negative thing against the characters of these men. Personally, I don’t think I could stand there in front of so many people to be so kind regarding these men who would show me no kindness in words or actions. I believe this paragraph says so much about Douglass' character and his spirit. I have the utmost respect for him.

2nd Response: “What is something you wonder about while reading?”

When I was initially reading this speech for the first time, I noticed on the first page in the fourth paragraph Douglas says the phrase “I am glad, fellow citizens, that your nation is so young.” As I see this, I wonder why Douglas addresses the people as his fellow citizens, but then later says “your nation”. Grammatically speaking, the way the sentence is worded implies to me that he views the citizens referred to as one with him. Later in the sentence, Douglass refers to the nation as “your nation.” This leads me into my question, does Douglass' word choice imply something deeper? My initial thought was that Douglass was implying that the nation is not his own. I wonder if the word choice has something to do with him being an African-American man and the struggles he faced to earn his freedom as well as get where he is today. Or could it possibly be a commentary on how the Americas were originally established as a white nation and would not have been considered his own nation the way it would other white citizens? Or simply, is it just a grammatical error and am I looking too deeply at it all? 

3rd Response: “What is a logical argument you noticed while reading?”

On the 10th page, second paragraph, Douglass speaks about the church and their beliefs on slavery. As I read this page, I noticed how articulate and how wonderfully put Douglas phrases, his opinions and those of the church regarding slavery. I do not understand how someone could listen to Douglas speak in such a way that so clearly explained the errors of the church's perspective and not agree. Douglass describes the church as the “bulwark of American slavery, and the shield of American slave­hunters.” That metaphor sums up the efforts of the people in power of the church who excused these cruel actions. Priests justified their wrongdoings, as well as the members of their church’s wrongdoings, by saying that God would be okay, if not supportive of the actions against their fellow human beings. The church would go as far as to say Christianity stood for slavery and constantly defended it. I’ve never understood why the priests would frequently imply that the Condone condoned slavery. Slavery alone is a sin, and saying it is not is another. To top it all off, spreading the ideology that God supports  enslavement and cruelty to his own people is blasphemy and yet another sin.  I think Douglass made a very compelling argument regarding this and have no doubt many listeners that day had a perspective change.

4th Response: “What is a phrase that stuck out to you while reading?”

While reading on page 2 towards the end of the page (the 6th paragraph) I saw a phrase that really stuck out to me. The phrase goes “Oppression makes a wise man mad.” Douglass described the feelings of oppression felt by the leaders who originally established the Americas. Those men felt they were being oppressed by England and denied their human rights. Ironic, right? I love the parallel Douglass uses of the founding fathers as the wise man to the wise men who were enslaved and oppressed by their white slaveholders. I believe Douglass started by describing the oppression of  white men initially to captivate his largely white audience and have them agree with his statement. As he continues through his speech, it is clear Douglass is not only speaking of the founding fathers as the wise man, but of the many African Americans who were enslaved and oppressed. The change in the connotation of who was being oppressed shows the mainly white audience how unfair slavery was to African Americans, because if they felt that much sympathy for the free white founding fathers, shouldn't they feel that much more for the enslaved human beings? I was truly fascinated by the parallel between the “oppression” of white men to the genuine oppression of African-American people during this time.