Download Douglass and Garrison Speeches

Frederick Douglass: The Hypocrisy of American
Slavery, July 4, 1852
Frederick Douglass (1817-1895), born a slave in Maryland, became the best known Black American leader of the 19th century. The first
half of his life, after his escape from slavery in 1838, was spent in the abolition movement. Later he served in a number of positions,
inlcuding US ambassador to Haiti. His 1845 autobiography, The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave was a
major influence on debate, although to escape re-enslavement, Douglass had to leave the US to seek refuge in England. With financial
help from English Quakers, Douglass purchased his own freedom from his former owners and returned in 1847 as a free man. From
Rochester, New York, he published the abolitionist paper The North Star, and helped escaped into Canada. In 1852, , invited to give
speech in Rochester, Douglass delivered the following indictment of a a nation celebrating freedom and independence, while keeping
slaves.
Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? 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? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the
benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions. Then would my
task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so
obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish
that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I
am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious
anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice
are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared
by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. 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. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak
today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon)
whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.
Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday,
are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children
of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!"
To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and
shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.
My subject, then, fellow citizens, is "American Slavery." I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of
view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul,
that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous
and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God
and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is
fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to
denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery -- the great sin and shame of America!
"I will not equivocate - I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that
any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.
But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a
favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your
cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the antislavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? Must I undertake to
prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the
enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are
seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the
punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.
What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is
conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and
penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then
I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your
hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with
you that the slave is a man!
For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting,
and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron,
copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among
us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to
other men -- digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving,
acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian
God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave -- we are called upon to prove that we are men?
Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it.
Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation,
as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look
today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking
of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your
understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.
What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them
ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to
hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into
obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong?
No - I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.
What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are
mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They
that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I
would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is
needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the
nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of
the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.
What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross
injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. 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 shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock;
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
of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.
Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out
every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with
me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
Frederick Douglass - July 4, 1852
http://www.shmoop.com/abolition/botw/resources?d=http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/dou
glass-hypo.html
Causes of the Civil War
The Civil War lasted from 1861 to 1865 and led to over 620,000 casualties. Its causes can be traced back to tensions that
formed early in the nation's history. Following are the top five causes that led to the "War Between the States."
Slavery & The Divisions That Stemmed From It
1. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the
question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free came to the forefront. The Missouri
Compromise passed in 1820, made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude
36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with
the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which
would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down after much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was
created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests.
One of the provisions was the Fugitive Slave Act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further
increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use
popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery
Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called "Border Ruffians." Problems came
to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called "Bleeding Kansas." The fight
even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South
Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks.
2. Growth of the Abolition Movement.
Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and
against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet
Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown's Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act
that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.
3. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
With Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce
the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations
willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the
southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the
northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw
cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes.
The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant
that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South
continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.
Continued on Next Page…
4. States versus federal rights.
Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the
federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution
was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal
government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to
come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states
rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution
ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if
they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have
the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such
as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were
no longer respected, they moved towards secession.
5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.
Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its
"Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests.
Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida,
Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas
Economic Factors in Secession
As the 1850s proceeded, the divide between the North and Northwest and the South and Southwest widened. The bitter
debates over the slave status of newly-admitted states, which had been going on since at least the Missouri Compromise
of 1820, were signs of the very real fear Southerners had of having their voice in Congress drowned out by "Yankee
industrialists." Incidents such as the Southern protests against the "Tariff of Abominations" in the 1820s and the
Nullification Crisis of the 1830s demonstrated how deep a rift the tariff controversy was creating between North and
South.
In Congress, Southern Representatives and Senators were concerned that their interests would not be suitably
addressed. As immigrants flocked to the Northern areas, swelling the ranks, Southerners were afraid the Northern states
would increase their representation in the House of Representatives, blocking "Southern-friendly" legislation. The
interests of Southern Americans who were African Americans, however, did not seem to concern a large number of
Southern Congressmen. By the late 1850s, the fear of Northern domination in national economic policy, combined with
the desire to maintain Southern institutions (including slavery), became a major influence on the people who eventually
chose to secede from the Union.
What did the Confederacy hope to accomplish by seceding from the Union? The clearest goal was to defend and
preserve the right of Southern Whites, including the right to own slaves. While the concept of owning another human
being would obviously be a moral and criminal issue today; many slaveowners either ignored or tried to justify their way
out of that dimension, focusing on the economic aspects of slavery. They held that the right to own people was a
property right, just like owning land or buildings. Thus, when Northern politicians tried to ensure that new states
admitted to the Union were "free-soil" (i.e., that no slavery was allowed), slaveowners felt that their right to settle in the
West with their "property," including slaves, was being infringed. In addition, in the minds of secessionists, the threat of
national abolition not only had the potential of reducing the wealth of many prominent Southerners, but also interfered
with the "property" rights of Southern Whites. Thus, secession seemed to be the only way of preserving those rights.
In addition, some secessionists were interested in preserving the "Southern way of life." While the image of the large
plantations and elegant Scarlet O'Hara-esque Southern belles sipping mint juleps was applicable to only a small minority
of southern farms, the gentility and clearly-defined class system was something of a comfort, even for those Southerners
who did not live in that world. In addition, some accepted the myth of the happy, subservient slave, who was not quite a
human being and would benefit from the civilizing influence of Southern gentility. At the foundation of the "Southern
way of life," however, was its oppressive economic system. In addition to reducing millions of Americans to the status of
chattel, it made it very difficult for non-landed, unskilled Whites to succeeded in the face of labor competition from
slaves.
Part of the "Southern way of life" was the European flavor and aspirations of the planter class. This cultural influence
grew out of and was fed by the long-standing mutual economic relationship between England and the South. In order to
ensure that the British market for Southern cotton remained open, Southern planters and others had to maintain
relatively sizable importation of goods from Britain. At the same time, the European influence on Southern gentile
society; in education, fashion, arts, and other fields; created a large demand for European imports. An imbalance in this
relationship, such as would be caused by the abolition of slavery or increases in tariffs, would have cultural implications
for the South.
Economics and the Union Victory
Despite the advantages the Confederacy had in well-trained officers and dedication to a cause, it was inevitable that the
Union would win the war. The only hope for the Confederacy would have been that the Union would not resist
secession, or that foreign nations would assist the Confederate cause. Once the Union decided to fight for unity and
European nations chose to remain largely neutral, there was little long-term hope for the Confederacy. The Union's
resources, although far from unlimited, were much greater than the Confederacy's resources, and would eventually last
longer.
The Union had more than double the population of the Confederacy (including slaves), and almost four times the
number of men of combat age. Even with only 50% of eligible men enlisted, relative to the Confederacy's 75%, the
Union still had more than twice the number of people in the armed forces.
In addition to being more industrialized than the South (see "Contrasting Economies" Section), the North had better
infrastructure. By the time of the Civil War, an extensive railroad system had been built, with new lines through the
Northwest being added. In the South, disputes between states prevented the construction of interstate railroad
systems. In all, the North had 20,000 miles of railroad compared to the South's 9,000 miles. In addition to possessing
70% of the total miles of railroad in the United States, the North had 96% of the United States' railroad equipment. The
long-standing shipbuilding industry in New England ensured that the North would have a large merchant marine, as well
as easy access to naval resources. Because of interstate conflicts, there were few continuous interstate railroad systems
through the South. In addition, although there was a small Southern industry producing naval stores, there were few
merchant ships or naval vessels in the South.
In the North, the US government was able to fund the war effort with the nation's treasury. The Union had strong
banking institutions, and controlled at least 70% of the nation's wealth. To raise more funds, the US government raised
taxes on goods and services and set high imports tariffs;. In addition, the Treasury issued paper money ("greenbacks")
which was not backed by gold, but by government credit, thus reducing the amount of specie necessary for a given
amount of money. The US government also raised money by selling bonds to individuals and banks.
The Southern economy, with its agricultural emphasis and relative lack of industrialization, did not have the money or
capacity to support a war effort. The Confederacy had less than $1 million in specie in its treasury. Because of the Union
blockade, Southern imports fell drastically, reducing the amount of import customs duties the Confederate government
could collect. The blockade also prevented Southern farmers to export their goods; Southern cotton exports, for
example, fell to 2% of their prewar volume. Thus, farmers and planters had little income with which to pay taxes.
Because of issues of states rights, central Confederate taxation was too controversial to be effective, and the states were
not contributing enough to the Confederate coffers to support its needs. The existence of slavery in the South and the
unlikeness of Confederate victory made foreign governments generally reluctant to loan money to the Confederacy. The
Confederacy tried to raise money by borrowing from its citizens, in exchange for Confederate bonds. The Confederate
government issued over $150 million in bonds, none of which was ever repaid.
In order to raise money, the Confederacy printed more currency, about $1 billion, causing drastic inflation. By 1864,
Confederate dollars were worth about $.05 in gold. Prices shot up, and many basic foods were out of the price range of
most Southerners. In the spring of 1862, bread riots began in many Southern cities, the worst being the Richmond Bread
Riot of April 2, 1862. More than a thousand women marched and rioted in downtown Richmond, shouting "bread or
blood." Jefferson Davis himself ended the riot by appearing in person and threatening to order the militia to open fire.
By the end of the war, the South was economically devastated, having experienced extensive loss of human life and
destruction of property. Poverty was widespread, and many resented the many Northerners and Southerners who took
advantage of the needy in the South as the war came to an end. These conditions made it more difficult for the nation to
heal the wounds which its union had suffered.
Conclusion
It is clear that economics was only one factor in the Civil War. Nevertheless, the economic tension between North and
South contributed greatly to political tensions. In addition, economic realities were largely responsible for the Union's
victory. While regional tensions and conflicts remained, the end of the Civil War signaled the beginning of the United
States' development, economically and otherwise, as one nation.
To The Public
William Lloyd Garrison: Editor of the Abolitionist newspaper The Liberator
January 1, 1831
During my recent tour for the purpose of exciting the minds of the people by a series of discourses on the
subject of slavery, every place that I visited gave fresh evidence of the fact, that a greater revolution in
public sentiment was to be effected in the free states—and particularly in New-England—than at the
south. I found contempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more
stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slave owners themselves. Of course, there were individual
exceptions to the contrary. This state of things afflicted, but did not dishearten me. I determined, at every
hazard, to lift up the standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of Bunker Hill and in
the birth place of liberty. That standard is now unfurled; and long may it float, unhurt by the spoliation of
time or the missiles of a desperate foe—yea, till every chain be broken, and every bondman set free! Let
southern oppressors tremble—let their secret abettors tremble—let their northern apologists tremble-let
all the enemies of the persecuted blacks tremble.
I deem the publication of my original Prospectus unnecessary, as it has obtained a wide circulation. The
principles therein inculcated will be steadily pursued in this paper, excepting that I shall not array myself
as the political partisan of any man. In defending the great cause of human rights, I wish to derive the
assistance of all religions and of all parties.
Assenting to the "self-evident truth" maintained in the American Declaration of Independence, "that all
men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—among which are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement
of our slave population. In Park-street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I
unreflectingly assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity
to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and
of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity.
A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the Genius of Universal Emancipation at Baltimore,
in September, 1829. My con-science is now satisfied.
I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be
as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or
write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to
moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe
from the fire into which it has fallen; —but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I
am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE
HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten
the resurrection of the dead.
It is pretended, that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective, and the
precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question my influence, —humble as it is, —is
felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years-not perniciously, but
beneficially-not as a curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that I was right. I desire to
thank God, that he enables me to disregard "the fear of man which bringeth a snare," and to speak his
truth in its simplicity and power. And here I close with this fresh dedication:
Oppression! I have seen thee, face to face,
And met thy cruel eye and cloudy brow;
But thy soul-withering glance I fear not now—
For dread to prouder feelings doth give place
Of deep abhorrence! Scorning the disgrace
Of slavish knees that at thy footstool bow,
I also kneel—but with far other vow
Do hail thee and thy hord of hirelings base:—
I swear, while life-blood warms my throbbing veins,
Still to oppose and thwart, with heart and hand,
Thy brutalising sway-till Afric’s chains
Are burst, and Freedom rules the rescued land,—
Trampling Oppression and his iron rod:
Such is the vow I take—SO HELP ME GOD!
William Lloyd Garrison
Boston, January 1, 1831
URL: http://www.TeachingAmericanHistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=576