Frederick Douglass’ speech titled ‘What to the Slave is the Fourth of July’ is a passionate oration on the plight of black slaves in pre Civil War America. Delivered in 1852 the speech is elaborate and rationale but also emotionally touching. It is fair to claim that this speech is a key piece of American historical literature. Sojourner Truth’s speech (whose verbatim accounts were never recorded), on the other hand, is most remarkable for its sense of humor and its ability to pick choice historical precedents. For instance, Truth peruses the New Testament and the story of the birth of Jesus Christ through Virgin Mary as a strong proof of the capacity and superiority of women when compared to men. Though she did not claim this superiority in such exact words, her general point is that women were treated highly even in the scriptures, whereas their status in real society is much diminished. This essay will argue that what is common between the two speeches is their passionate tone, sincerity and compelling necessity; and while Douglass’ speech is marked by its detailed analysis and sobriety, Truth’s is full of wit, humor and insight.
Douglass begins his speech by highlighting the virtues of the Founding Fathers and their thrust for independence from the British Crown. He notes that the idea of attempting to establish sovereignty by breaking away from the British command was indeed very brave and revolutionary. Having identified and praised what is meritorious about the short history of the American nation, Douglass then declares how these achievements are offset by a perennial negative feature of American society – namely black slavery. Douglass’ tone is one of deliberate and measured rationality and inquiry. He punctuates his speech with numerous historical references that justify his plea of equality for blacks. Truth’s originality lies in invoking a very well known Biblical event and interpreting it in a novel way. It accounts for its immediate appeal and affect on the audience – which comprised of both men and women. The following passage shows how Truth had adopted Christian Evangelical rhetorical style in her own delivery
“Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man — when I could get it — and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?” (Truth, 1851)
The contexts in which the two speeches were made help evaluate their merits. Frederick Douglass delivered his speech a decade before the onset of the Civil War – a time when blacks did not even have the nominal status of freedom. An overwhelming majority of the community is slaves and led a harsh and laborious life. For this reason, Douglass declares, the Fourth of July is a day of celebration for ‘you’ (White Americans) and not ‘us’ (Black Americans). The condition of the black community in America has not seen any improvement in the eight decades of independence that has preceded the date of his speech. Douglass is quite right in feeling about his community this way. There is no reason for rejoicing for his community till they win civil rights on par with that of white Americans. Though Douglass was addressing a predominantly white audience, there were no major disruptions during the delivery of his speech. This is in part attributable to the rhetorical technique he employed. He first wins over the trust and confidence of his audience by talking about their merits and achievements. This way, the audience is accepting and attentive to what he is saying. Then he takes the oration to a different path, namely that of the plight of black Americans in relation to the freedoms enjoyed by white Americans: “This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.” (Douglass, 1852) One of the reasons why Douglass’ tone is inoffensive is because he places facts before the audience in a matter of fact way. He doesn’t extrapolate or exaggerate anything to antagonize the audience. Instead, Douglass adopts a rational/logical tone while not forsaking passion and emotion in the delivery of the speech. The speech can be described as rationale due to the fact Douglass offers detailed deductions behind each of his assertions. He rightly claims at the beginning of his speech that all fair-minded and unprejudiced men will agree with him. Hence, we see the speaker’s attempt to respect the intelligence and judgment of his gentlemen audience. While giving importance to rationality, Douglass doesn’t sacrifice on emotional affect. He accomplishes this through use of apt imagery and lyrical construction of his sentences, as the following passage testifies:
“To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.” (Douglass, 1852)
Sojourner Truth’s oratorical style, in contrast, is based on shocking her audience in the most unexpected way. Having aroused then attention through this tactic, she then conveys the key message she is pitching for – namely women’s rights in America. Her speech was made impromptu – in fact, the organizer of the public event was apprehensive as Truth approached to take center-stage at the dais. Much of the effectiveness of Truth’s speech comes from her sense of humor and sharp wit. In one of the playful references during her speech, she asks the men among the audience why Jesus Christ was a product of God and a blessed woman – or why was he born without the coital intervention of a man? This is a rhetorical question meant to suggest that somehow men were inferior to women in the divine scheme of things. But what it was actually meant for is as recompense for the burden carried by Eve as the original Temptress. Even allowing for Eve’s original guilt, Truth cleverly co-opts this understanding to pitch for women’s rights thus: “I have heard the bible and have learned that Eve caused man to sin. Well, if woman upset the world, do give her a chance to set it right side up again.” (Truth, 1851) This shows that though the orator was uneducated in the conventional sense, she had a sharp wit and powers of perception. Truth’s oration is differentiated from that of Douglass’ by its lack of subtlety and courtly manners. Yet, it does satisfactorily achieves what the speaker intended to do, namely, make the member of the audience think critically about the status of women in America of that period.
In conclusion, judging purely for their rhetorical mastery, it is fair to claim that Douglass’ speech is to be esteemed as better. Though both speakers show emotion and compassion for their communities (blacks and women respectively), it is Frederick Douglass who takes the trouble of offering numerous historical references and precedents to justify his stance. He creates compelling juxtapositions of the diminished status of blacks to that of the relative freedoms enjoyed by whites. Sojourner Truth’s speech, though a key even in the first wave feminist movement, plays to the gallery more than attempt a cogent and coherent analysis. The fact that no first-hand account of the speech is recorded and there are numerous contending versions in circulation makes it tough to ascertain its actual effectiveness. Douglass is also the more literary of the two orators and his speech is thus marked by erudition, which is absent in Truth’s presentation.